Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India and Another Vs. Prakash and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1173832
CourtMumbai Nagpur High Court
Decided OnApr-09-2015
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 594 of 2002 & 595 of 2002
JudgeA.S. CHANDURKAR
AppellantUnion of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India and Another
RespondentPrakash and Another
Excerpt:
motor vehicle act, 1988 - section 166 -oral judgment: 1. since both these appeals arise out of the same accident and are based on identical facts, they are being decided together by this common judgment. 2. the respondent in f.a. no.594/2002 and the respondent in f.a. no.595/2002 are brothers who were riding on their luna from kanhan to nagpur on 25-5-1992. according to said respondents, between 8 p.m. and 8.30 p.m., they were hit by a military vehicle. the respondent in first appeal no.595/2002 was riding the luna while the respondent in first appeal no.594/2002 was the pillion rider. according to said respondents, the offending vehicle had dashed a cycle, an autorickshaw and a scooter besides dashing the luna. both the respondents, therefore, filed claim petition no.480/1992 seeking compensation under section 166 of the motor vehicle act, 1988. during pendency of the said proceedings, it was directed that there being two claimants, two separate petitions be registered and accordingly, claim petition no.738/1997 was registered subsequently. 3. the present appellants opposed the claim petitions by filing their written statement. it was stated that the vehicle that was alleged to have been involved in the accident was not at all present at the site in question where the accident had been stated to have taken place. a stand was taken that said vehicle had met with any accident at a different place on the same day at 21.15 hours. the liability to pay compensation was, therefore, denied on this ground that the vehicle belonging to the appellants as claimed by the respondents had not met with any accident whatsoever. on behalf of the original claimants, prakash was examined vide exhibit-35. he stated that on account of said accident, he had sustained injury on his right hand and right leg. he stated that after hitting their vehicle, the truck in question did not stop and it went ahead. he stated that he and his brother were hospitalized from 29-5-1992 to 13-6-1992. he also deposed that he had sustained disability on account of injuries to his leg. he also stated that their vehicle was seized by the police along with the military truck in question. the driver of the military vehicle was also held guilty in the court martial proceedings. in his cross examination, said witness stated that the vehicle that hit their luna was a military vehicle of green colour and except its colour, he was not aware of any other details. the other brother dilip was also examined vide exhibit-107 and he also deposed on similar lines. the claimants also examined dr. sanjay manekar vide exhibit-104 and their father ganpatrao vide exhibit-112. on behalf of the present appellants, the driver of the military truck which was stated to have met with an accident at a different place was examined vide exhibit-21. in his cross examination, he denied that his vehicle was involved in an accident near garud club chowk. he, however, admitted that he had been prosecuted by the police for having committed the accident in question. another witness examined was one prakash gurde who was the dy. superintendent of police vide exhibit-125. he had conducted the spot panchanama on 30-5-1992 and had also investigated the crime as per first information report at exhbiit-87. in his cross examination, he stated that the luna in question was seized by him. he further stated that the military vehicle in question was likely to be involved in the said accident as green colour was found on the vehicle that had met with an accident. he also referred to the chargesheet filed against the said driver. 4. the claims tribunal after considering aforesaid evidence was pleased to hold that both the claimants had suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.82c31134a. it accepted the evidence led regarding involvement of said military vehicle. it thereafter proceeded to award compensation of rs.24,768/- in claim petition no.738/1997 and rs.35,864/- in claim petition no.480/1992. 5. shri r. s. sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals submitted that there was no evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the military vehicle that was mentioned in the claim petitions was actually involved in said accident. he submitted that a specific stand in that regard was taken in the written statement. in the first information report, the number of the vehicle had not been mentioned and on the contrary, said vehicle was involved in an accident that took place at some other location and not the location as alleged by the claimants. he referred to the cross examination of the claimants in which they had stated that they only knew about the colour of the military vehicle and that they had not made any enquiry about the offending vehicle. without prejudice, it was submitted that even the amount of compensation awarded was without any evidence on record. the medical bills had not been duly proved, nor was there any evidence regarding actual injuries suffered. it was, therefore, submitted that the claims tribunal was not justified in granting compensation to both the claimants. 6. shri m. r. joharapurkar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in both the appeals supported the impugned judgments. it was submitted that the evidence on record was sufficient to hold that both the claimants had been injured in the accident caused by the vehicle owned by the appellants. the learned counsel referred to the evidence on record which indicated that the military vehicle that had been named in the claim petition had been seized along with the luna and that even the driver had admitted of being prosecuted for said accident. it was further submitted that after the accident, both the claimants had fallen down and hence, merely because number of the vehicle had not been specifically mentioned in the first information report, the same would not be relevant for denying grant of compensation. it was urged that in such cases, the statement of the claimant on oath was sufficient evidence and the same was, therefore, rightly accepted by the claims tribunal. it was also submitted that the amount of compensation granted was on a lesser side though both the claimants were entitled for higher amount of compensation. 7. the following point arises for consideration: whether the respondents have proved that they are entitled for grant of compensation on account of alleged accident.? 8. i have carefully considered the submissions as urged and i have also gone through the records of the case. the evidence on record indicates that when both the claimants were riding on their luna on 25-5-1992, they were injured in an accident caused by a military vehicle. the claimants have stated that as a result of such fall, the number of the offending vehicle could not be noted. in such situation, it would be necessary to consider the entire evidence on record to arrive at a conclusion regarding entitlement of the claims for compensation. in bimladevi and others vs. himachal road transport corporation and others (2009) 13 scc 530 the supreme court has held that in certain cases strict proof of an accident caused by particular vehicle and in a particular manner may not be possible to be proved by the claimants. the claimants were required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied. said view has been reiterated by the supreme court in the subsequent decision in dulcinafernandes and others vs. joaquim xavier cruz and another (2013) 10 scc 646. reference in said decision was also made to an earlier decision of the supreme court in united india insurance united india insurance company limited vs. shila datta and others (2011) 10 scc 509 where it was held that the award by the tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication. “9. the following further observation available in para 10 of the report would require specific note :(shilpa datta case, scc p. 519) “10...... we have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute.” 9. if in aforesaid background the entire evidence on record is taken into account, it reveals that the driver of the offending vehicle had been court martialed for causing the accident. similarly, he was also prosecuted by the police authorities for having caused said accident. the police officer who was examined on behalf of the present appellants stated in his cross examination that he was satisfied after recording statements of the injured persons i.e. the claimants that the military vehicle in question was involved in the accident. for said purpose, he also took into consideration the fact that green colour material was also found on the vehicle that was involved in the accident. the luna as well as the truck in question had also been seized by the police authorities. the reason for conducting the spot panchanama after 5 days was also explained by stating that same was not possible earlier due to hospitalization of the claimants. 10. the claims tribunal accepted aforesaid evidence while coming to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled for compensation. while doing so, it has considered the entire evidence on record as well as all attending circumstances. the fact that both the claimants were also called by the military authorities in the court martial proceedings was also given due weightage by the learned member of the claims tribunal. it, therefore, cannot be said that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the conclusion arrived at by the claims tribunal. thus, on the preponderance of probabilities, the claimants had proved that they had sustained injuries in the accident caused by the vehicle owned by the appellant no.1. 11. the point as framed is, therefore, answered by holding that the claims tribunal was justified in granting compensation to the claimants. as regards quantum of compensation granted, the claims tribunal has considered the cash vouchers on record including the payments made to the doctor. it further granted rs.15,000/- for the fracture sustained by the respondent in first appeal no.595/2002. evidence on record has also been considered while granting compensation to the respondent in first appeal no.594/2002. there is, therefore, no reason to disturb such finding. 12. hence, in view of aforesaid discussion, the following order is passed: (1) the judgment of the claims tribunal in claim petition nos.480/1992 and 738/1997 stands confirmed. (2) both the appeals are dismissed, but without any order as to costs. (3) needless to state that the respective respondent in each appeal is permitted to withdraw the amount of compensation that has been deposited by the appellants in terms of the judgment of the claims tribunal along with interest thereon.
Judgment:

Oral Judgment:

1. Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident and are based on identical facts, they are being decided together by this common judgment.

2. The respondent in F.A. No.594/2002 and the respondent in F.A. No.595/2002 are brothers who were riding on their Luna from Kanhan to Nagpur on 25-5-1992. According to said respondents, between 8 p.m. and 8.30 p.m., they were hit by a Military vehicle. The respondent in First Appeal No.595/2002 was riding the Luna while the respondent in First Appeal No.594/2002 was the pillion rider. According to said respondents, the offending vehicle had dashed a cycle, an autorickshaw and a scooter besides dashing the Luna. Both the respondents, therefore, filed Claim Petition No.480/1992 seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. During pendency of the said proceedings, it was directed that there being two claimants, two separate petitions be registered and accordingly, Claim Petition No.738/1997 was registered subsequently.

3. The present appellants opposed the claim petitions by filing their written statement. It was stated that the vehicle that was alleged to have been involved in the accident was not at all present at the site in question where the accident had been stated to have taken place. A stand was taken that said vehicle had met with any accident at a different place on the same day at 21.15 hours. The liability to pay compensation was, therefore, denied on this ground that the vehicle belonging to the appellants as claimed by the respondents had not met with any accident whatsoever. On behalf of the original claimants, Prakash was examined vide Exhibit-35. He stated that on account of said accident, he had sustained injury on his right hand and right leg. He stated that after hitting their vehicle, the truck in question did not stop and it went ahead. He stated that he and his brother were hospitalized from 29-5-1992 to 13-6-1992. He also deposed that he had sustained disability on account of injuries to his leg. He also stated that their vehicle was seized by the police along with the Military truck in question. The driver of the Military vehicle was also held guilty in the Court Martial Proceedings. In his cross examination, said witness stated that the vehicle that hit their Luna was a Military vehicle of green colour and except its colour, he was not aware of any other details. The other brother Dilip was also examined vide Exhibit-107 and he also deposed on similar lines. The claimants also examined Dr. Sanjay Manekar vide Exhibit-104 and their father Ganpatrao vide Exhibit-112. On behalf of the present appellants, the driver of the Military truck which was stated to have met with an accident at a different place was examined vide Exhibit-21. In his cross examination, he denied that his vehicle was involved in an accident near Garud Club Chowk. He, however, admitted that he had been prosecuted by the police for having committed the accident in question. Another witness examined was one Prakash Gurde who was the Dy. Superintendent of Police vide Exhibit-125. He had conducted the spot panchanama on 30-5-1992 and had also investigated the crime as per First Information Report at Exhbiit-87. In his cross examination, he stated that the Luna in question was seized by him. He further stated that the Military vehicle in question was likely to be involved in the said accident as green colour was found on the vehicle that had met with an accident. He also referred to the chargesheet filed against the said driver.

4. The Claims Tribunal after considering aforesaid evidence was pleased to hold that both the claimants had suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.82C31134A. It accepted the evidence led regarding involvement of said Military vehicle. It thereafter proceeded to award compensation of Rs.24,768/- in Claim Petition No.738/1997 and Rs.35,864/- in Claim Petition No.480/1992.

5. Shri R. S. Sundaram, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals submitted that there was no evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the Military vehicle that was mentioned in the claim petitions was actually involved in said accident. He submitted that a specific stand in that regard was taken in the written statement. In the First Information Report, the number of the vehicle had not been mentioned and on the contrary, said vehicle was involved in an accident that took place at some other location and not the location as alleged by the claimants. He referred to the cross examination of the claimants in which they had stated that they only knew about the colour of the Military vehicle and that they had not made any enquiry about the offending vehicle. Without prejudice, it was submitted that even the amount of compensation awarded was without any evidence on record. The medical bills had not been duly proved, nor was there any evidence regarding actual injuries suffered. It was, therefore, submitted that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in granting compensation to both the claimants.

6. Shri M. R. Joharapurkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in both the appeals supported the impugned judgments. It was submitted that the evidence on record was sufficient to hold that both the claimants had been injured in the accident caused by the vehicle owned by the appellants. The learned Counsel referred to the evidence on record which indicated that the Military vehicle that had been named in the claim petition had been seized along with the Luna and that even the driver had admitted of being prosecuted for said accident. It was further submitted that after the accident, both the claimants had fallen down and hence, merely because number of the vehicle had not been specifically mentioned in the First Information Report, the same would not be relevant for denying grant of compensation. It was urged that in such cases, the statement of the claimant on oath was sufficient evidence and the same was, therefore, rightly accepted by the Claims Tribunal. It was also submitted that the amount of compensation granted was on a lesser side though both the claimants were entitled for higher amount of compensation.

7. The following point arises for consideration:

Whether the respondents have proved that they are entitled for grant of compensation on account of alleged accident.?

8. I have carefully considered the submissions as urged and I have also gone through the records of the case. The evidence on record indicates that when both the claimants were riding on their Luna on 25-5-1992, they were injured in an accident caused by a Military vehicle. The claimants have stated that as a result of such fall, the number of the offending vehicle could not be noted. In such situation, it would be necessary to consider the entire evidence on record to arrive at a conclusion regarding entitlement of the claims for compensation. In BimlaDevi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SCC 530 the Supreme Court has held that in certain cases strict proof of an accident caused by particular vehicle and in a particular manner may not be possible to be proved by the claimants. The claimants were required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied. Said view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in DulcinaFernandes and others vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another (2013) 10 SCC 646. Reference in said decision was also made to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Shila Datta and others (2011) 10 SCC 509 where it was held that the award by the Tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication.

“9. The following further observation available in para 10 of the Report would require specific note :(Shilpa Datta case, SCC p. 519)

“10...... We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the Tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute.”

9. If in aforesaid background the entire evidence on record is taken into account, it reveals that the driver of the offending vehicle had been Court martialed for causing the accident. Similarly, he was also prosecuted by the police authorities for having caused said accident. The Police Officer who was examined on behalf of the present appellants stated in his cross examination that he was satisfied after recording statements of the injured persons i.e. the claimants that the Military vehicle in question was involved in the accident. For said purpose, he also took into consideration the fact that green colour material was also found on the vehicle that was involved in the accident. The Luna as well as the truck in question had also been seized by the police authorities. The reason for conducting the spot panchanama after 5 days was also explained by stating that same was not possible earlier due to hospitalization of the claimants.

10. The Claims Tribunal accepted aforesaid evidence while coming to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled for compensation. While doing so, it has considered the entire evidence on record as well as all attending circumstances. The fact that both the claimants were also called by the Military authorities in the Court Martial proceedings was also given due weightage by the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal. It, therefore, cannot be said that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the conclusion arrived at by the Claims Tribunal. Thus, on the preponderance of probabilities, the claimants had proved that they had sustained injuries in the accident caused by the vehicle owned by the appellant No.1.

11. The point as framed is, therefore, answered by holding that the Claims Tribunal was justified in granting compensation to the claimants. As regards quantum of compensation granted, the Claims Tribunal has considered the cash vouchers on record including the payments made to the Doctor. It further granted Rs.15,000/- for the fracture sustained by the respondent in First Appeal No.595/2002. Evidence on record has also been considered while granting compensation to the respondent in First Appeal No.594/2002. There is, therefore, no reason to disturb such finding.

12. Hence, in view of aforesaid discussion, the following order is passed:

(1) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition Nos.480/1992 and 738/1997 stands confirmed.

(2) Both the appeals are dismissed, but without any order as to costs.

(3) Needless to state that the respective respondent in each appeal is permitted to withdraw the amount of compensation that has been deposited by the appellants in terms of the judgment of the Claims Tribunal along with interest thereon.