In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 2,82,000/- to the petitioner. The Court held the award was just, reasoned, and supported by evidence regarding negligence and expenses.
The appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal's order is upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO No. 439 of 2011 Reserved on : 09.05.2017 Decided on: 17.05.2017
Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another
...Appellants
Versus
Madan Lal and another …Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the appellants : Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Abhay Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
The present appeal under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is maintained by the appellants/respondents (before the learned Tribunal below) (hereinafter to be called as “the respondents”) against the impugned award, dated 28.09.2011, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu, H.P. in Claim Petition
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
No. 37 of 2009, filed by the petitioner/who is respondent No. 1 before this Court (hereinafter to be called as “the petitioner”), wherein the petitioner was awarded compensation of ` 2,82,000/-alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realization.
boarded a HRTC bus, bearing registration No. HP-48-4530. When the bus reached at Balu, District Chamba, where the work of metalling the road was going on, the driver of the bus while negotiating a curve, could not control the bus, due to which, the bus collided with concrete electric pole and the petitioner, who was sitting in the rear seat of the bus on driver’s side, sustained grievous injury on his right arm. After the said accident, the petitioner was shifted to District Hospital, Chamba, wherefrom he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted from 22.05.2008
3
to 24.05.2008. His right arm was operated and an iron rod was inserted. It was stated that during the treatment of the petitioner at PGI, Chandigarh, he had to hire one attendant. It was further contended that the petitioner was a good professional player of Volly Ball, having future aim in this field, however due to said accident, he is unable to play the game. It was averred that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and the petitioner spent rupees one lac on his treatment, hence he sought compensation to the tune of ` 5,00,000/-.
issues on 17.06.2008, as under:
1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries on 21.05.2008 while travelling in vehicle No. HP-484530 driven by the respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner? OPP
4
2. If Issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR-2
4. Relief.”
learned Tribunal below awarded the compensation of ` 2,82,000/- in favour of the petitioner, which was to be paid by respondents No. 1 & 3.
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, rather it was occurred due to negligence of the petitioner,
as the petitioner has kept his arm outside the window of the
bus. In these circumstances, the present appeal is required
5
to be allowed and the award passed by the learned Tribunal below deserves to be set aside.
Ram Chander, co-passenger, who has authenticated and corroborated the testimony of the petitioner by deposing
6
that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/respondent No. 2. PW-3, HC Pawan Kumar, has proved FIR Ex. PW-5/A and testified that FIR No. 101/2008 was registered on 21.05.2008.
7
the evidence on record, it is clear that the accident took
place due to the negligence on the part of driver/respondent No. 2 and the learned Tribunal below has rightly decided this issue against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
8
produced by the respondents. Thus, the learned Tribunal below has not committed any illegality while taking the monthly income of the petitioner to ` 5,000/-.
9
awarded in favour of the petitioner comes to ` 2,82,000/-, which is just, reasoned.
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal below is
just and reasonable, hence needs no interference. The appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, shall
also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) 17th May, 2017 Judge (raman)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was just, reasonable, and capable of interference?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Himachal Road Transport Corporation
Madan Lal
Chander Bhusan Barowalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
