Jagjit Kaur and ors. Vs. Dr. Harish Chander Ohri and ors. - Court Judgment

A.L. Bahri, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by Jagjit Kaur and others against the award made by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, on 16.10.1985. The Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Old Act) with 12 per cent interest from the date of filing of the claim, i.e., January 31, 1984 till payment. Regarding the remaining claim, the petition was dismissed. Cross-objections have been filed by the insurance company.

2. The accident took place on November 6, 1983 at about 10.00 a.m. Daljit Singh was going on a scooter along with his wife Jagjit Kaur and minor child on Chandigarh-Mohali Road. When they reached near village Polsora, they noticed one bus parked on the roadside. When they were in the process of overtaking the said bus, it started. The rear portion of the bus hit the scooter with the result that Daljit Singh and his family members fell on the road. Daljit Singh fell towards the right side whereas others on the other side. In the meantime, a car No. PUF 93 came from the opposite direction. It overrun Daljit Singh resulting in his death. On these allegations, Jagjit Kaur, widow of the deceased and the minor child, Amarjit Singh (now major) and Ramandip Singh filed claim petition under Section 110-A of the Old Act before the Tribunal. The accident was denied on behalf of the owner-driver of the car. He gave his own version that at the relevant time, after Daljit Singh had been hit by the bus which was parked, another bus was going ahead of the car. The car stopped after the accident and noticing that Daljit Singh had already died and others had suffered minor injuries, they left the spot. In other words, it was denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the car. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal:

(1) Whether Daljit Singh died in a motor vehicle accident on 6.11.1983, as a result of rash and negligent driving of car No. PUF 93, driven by Dr. Harish Chander, respondent No. 1, if so, what is its effect?

(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled and if so, against whom?

(3) Whether Inder Singh, father and Kartar Kaur, mother of Daljit Singh deceased are necessary parties to this claim petition? If so, what is its effect?

(4) Relief.

3. Under issue No. 1, though it was held that there was no rash or negligent driving of the car, however, certain observations were made that the car was involved in the accident. On issue No. 2, it was held that only Rs. 15,000/- were payable to the claimants on account of no fault liability. Under issue No. 3, no finding was given except it was noticed that parents of the deceased were impleaded as respondents, namely, Inder Singh and Kartar Kaur.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that on the evidence led in the case, finding on issue No. 1 should have been in favour of the petitioners holding that Daljit Singh had died on account of the injuries which were suffered in the accident due to rashness and negligence of driver of the car in dispute. I am afraid, on going through the evidence produced in the case, this contention cannot be accepted. No doubt oral evidence produced by the petitioner suggested that the deceased was run over by the car. This evidence consists of PW 1 Jagjit Kaur, petitioner herself and PW 3 Baldev Singh and PW 4 Swaran Singh. This oral evidence produced in the case cannot be implicitly relied upon in view of the medical evidence. PW 2 Dr. Ashok Gupta conducted postmortem on the dead body of Daljit Singh deceased and found the following five injuries:

(1) Abrasion 2' X 1' on the tip of left shoulder.

(2) Abrasion 1' X 1' on the front of left knee.

(3) Abrasions 2 in number each of the size of 1/3' X 1/2' on the lateral aspect of the left knee.

(4) Abrasion 2' X 1' on the lateral aspect of right knee.

(5) Abrasion 2' X 1' on the right side of neck.

The doctor also found fracture on the skull as under:

Skull: Fracture right temporal bone with fracture right middle cranial fossa. Extensive sub-dural haematoma on both cerebral hemispheres and around brain stems at the base of the skull.

Stomach: Two ounces of semi-digested food, mucus normal.

Bone injuries: (1) Fracture shaft humerus left side.

(2) Fracture mandible right side.

5. During cross-examination, the doctor admitted that he did not observe any crush injuries on the dead body. The fracture on the temporal bone could as well be by striking of the head on a hard surface. He was categoric that this injury could not possibly be caused by running over of the tyre over the head of the deceased. He also gave opinion regarding other injuries that the same could not be possible by running over of the tyre of the car. The opinion of the doctor in this respect is otherwise correct. No outer injury on the head was found which could be caused by running over of the wheel of the car on the deceased. The abrasions and fractures on the skull, as noticed above, could be suffered by falling on the road itself. To that extent, the story of the petitioner as well as contesting respondents is common that the bus which was parked had suddenly started hitting the scooter driven by the deceased and with this impact the deceased and other family members fell on the road itself.

6. On behalf of the respondents other evidence was also produced that no action was taken by the investigating agency (police) against the driver of the car. Even in the case registered regarding this accident, no evidence was collected that the car was involved therein. Such evidence consists of statements of the Investigating Officers, recording of the F.I.R. relating to the accident, evidence of the doctor who examined Jagjit Kaur before whom Jagjit Kaur stated that bus was involved in the accident. Such evidence has been noticed by the trial court in its judgment and it is not necessary to refer to the same here as the claimants' case is to stand on its own legs and not on the weaknesses of the evidence produced by the respondents. It may further be noticed that the occupants of the car were also produced by the respondents to show that the car was not involved in the accident. Their evidence was not relied upon by the Tribunal that they had put up a new story that the deceased was sandwiched between the two buses which was not accepted by the trial court.

7. Reverting again to the evidence produced by the claimants, as already noticed above, the evidence of Baldev Singh, PW 3 and Swaran Singh, PW 4 as well as Jagjit Kaur, PW 1, cannot be accepted that the car was involved in the accident; that the death of Daljit Singh occurred on account of injuries caused by rash and negligent driving of the car. None of these witnesses reported the matter to the police and further their evidence is belied by the medical evidence as discussed above.

8. The other question for determination in this case is as to whether the car was involved in the accident and to grant fixed compensation as required under Section 92-Aof the Old Act without proof of rashness or negligent driving of the car ultimately resulting in causing the death of Daljit Singh. Section 92-A (1) of the Old Act reads as under:

92-A Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principles of no fault.--(1) Where the death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.

9. The object of the aforesaid provision is to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased whose death was caused in a motor vehicle accident even if the claimants failed to prove rash or negligent act of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. Such a plea cannot be defeated even on the part of the respondents by proof of non-existence of rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. Thus, it is important to determine as to whether the car was in fact involved in the accident or not although, as stated above, the evidence produced by the claimants clearly indicated that the car was not at all involved in the accident as the injuries found on the deceased could not be suffered by running over by a wheel of the car. The Tribunal based its decision while coming to the conclusion that the car was also involved in the accident relying upon the statement of Jagjit Kaur, PW 1 and inaction on the part of the occupants of the car which included two doctors to give medical aid to the injured on the spot and speeding away from there. Such a finding is not warranted on the evidence produced in this case. The story put forth by the respondents in the evidence is that Daljit Singh had died on the spot and others who had suffered injuries, did not require any medical aid. According to Jagjit Kaur herself, immediately after the accident, she had stood up on the road and had noticed the approaching car. This itself shows that she had no serious injury on her person. In the claim petition, it has been mentioned that though the occupants of the car tried to slip away from the spot, the car was stopped by the people collected there. This negatives her stand that without stopping on the spot, the car was sought to be taken away. Rather, this supports the stand of the respondents that they noticed that Daljit Singh had died on the spot and others did not require any medical attention and that they left the spot. While appearing in court, Jagjit Kaur, PW 1 stated that after some time she had also gone unconscious and she regained consciousness in the P.G.I, and later came to know that her husband had died.

10. During investigation of the case by the police no evidence was collected that car of the respondents was damaged in the accident. If the car had hit the deceased, as is the claim in the petition, there would have been some sort of damage to the car. Further as is the case of the claimants, the deceased had already fallen on the ground and the only other act attributed to the driver of the car was that one of the wheels of the car had overrun the deceased which has been found to be absolutely false. On this material, it was not correct on the part of the Tribunal to hold that the car was involved in the accident to impose the liability on its owner or driver and thereafter on insurance company of Rs. 15,000/-, fixed amount of compensation in this case. The C.T.U. bus was involved in the accident which is the admitted case of the parties. However, the Chandigarh Administration was not impleaded as a party on whom, on account of the accident, no fault liability could be fastened. Since the car was not involved in the accident, the awarding of Rs. 15,000/- payable by the owner and the insurance company of the car was not justified.

11. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed whereas the cross-objections filed on behalf of the insurance company are allowed and the entire claim petition of the claimants is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.