Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Beli Ram & Ors on 10 November, 2014
$~A-13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10.11.2014
+ MAC.APP. 586/2011
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Manish Kaushik, Advocate for
Mr.K.L.Nandwani, Advocate.
versus
BELI RAM & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.S.K.Pandey, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
1. By the present appeal the appellant seeks to impugn the Award dated
15.03.2011.
2. The brief facts which gave rise to the appeal and the claim petition are
that respondent No.1 was injured in a road accident on 09.09.2008. He was in
the process of getting into a bus. Before he could completely get into the bus,
the bus was moved by the driver respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 fell down
and his left leg got crushed under the wheels of the bus. The foot had to be
amputated.
3. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that respondent No.1
suffered injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2.
4. On compensation the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.7,68,782/-, the details of which are as follows:-
(i) Medical expenses : Rs.2,45,900/-
(ii)Special diet and Conveyance : Rs.24,000/-
(iii) Loss of income : Rs.22,098/-
(iv) Loss of income due to disability : Rs.1,76,784/-
(v) Pain and suffering : Rs.1,00,000/-
(vi)Loss of expectation of life : Rs.1,00,000/-
(vii)Loss of amenities : Rs.1,00,000/-
Total : Rs. 7,68,782/-
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant impugns the Award on
different grounds. He firstly submits that the license of respondent No.2 was
fake and that the appellant company was not liable to pay the compensation. It
is urged that respondent No.2 has produced two different driving license which
in any case he could not have had. It is next urged that the accident took place
due to sole negligence of respondent No.1 and hence no compensation is
payable. It is next urged that there was no original document filed by the
appellant to prove his cost of operation/medical expenses and yet the Tribunal
has awarded a sum of Rs.2,45,900/- as reimbursement of medical bills. It is
lastly submitted that no doctor stepped into the witness box to prove the
disability of respondent No.1 and yet the Tribunal has assessed the functional
disability of respondent No. 1 at 80% and awarded Rs.1,76,784/- as loss of
income due to disability ignoring that respondent No.1 on the date of the
accident was 72 years of age.
6. As far as the fake driving license part is concerned, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.3/the owner of the offending vehicle has pointed
out that as per his evidence he has taken due care and precaution and he has
also filed copy of the valid driving license which driving license the appellant
Company has not been able to show to be fake.
7. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had examined R1W1, Dealing
Assistant from the office of MLO, Wazirpur, Delhi who has deposed that the
driving license in question was not issued from their authority. However,
respondent No.2 had produced a driving license Ex.R2W1/1 issued from the
Licensing Authority, Nalwadi, Assam. The Tribunal noted that as per
respondent No.2 he has not produced any license from Wazirpur Office said to
be bearing No.C08032005384957 i.e. the licence on which R1W1 deposed.
Therefore, based on these facts, the Tribunal directed the appellant Insurance
Company to indemnify the claim amount.
8. Respondent No.3/the owner of the offending vehicle in his evidence has
said that he examined the driver-respondent No.2 and he had shown to him his
driving license Ex.R2W1/1. He has in his cross-examination confirmed that he
knew Jai Bhagwan for the last four to five years though he had been engaged
only 15 days prior to the date of the accident, namely, 09.09.2008. He has also
in his cross-examination confirmed that he has seen the driving license of the
driver Jai Bhagwan before keeping him as a driver. He has denied that the so
called fake driving license of Jai Bhagwan was shown to him which is marked
as Ex.R2W1/D1. He had taken a test drive of respondent No.2 before
employing him in the bus. He was also said to be driving another bus.
9. In the light of the above evidence, it is obvious that firstly, the appellant
have failed to verify the driving license produced by respondent No.3, namely,
Ex.R2W1/1. There is also enough evidence on record to show that the owner of
the offending vehicle respondent No.3 has taken adequate precaution before
engaging respondent No.2. He has checked the original driving license and has
taken test drive of respondent No.2 whom he knew for the last four to five
years and who was also earlier driving buses. In view of the evidence on record
and keeping in view the judgment of the supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh & Ors, (2004)3 SCC 297, I see
no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal directing the appellant
company to pay the award amount.
10. Regarding the so called negligence of respondent No.1, Respondent
no.1/PW-1 Sh. Beli Ram in his affidavit by way of evidence has said that when
he was getting into the bus and he only put his one leg on the stairs of the bus,
respondent No.2 moved the bus rashly and negligently due to which the
balance of respondent No.1 got disturbed and the said respondent No.1 fell
down from the bus. Left leg of respondent No.1 was hence crushed by the
offending bus. In his cross-examination, he has not been examined on this
deposition.
11. In the light of the above evidence on record of the eye witness PW-1,
there are no reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the Tribunal that
the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by respondent No.2.
12. As far as the other two submissions are concerned regarding absence of
original documents and the fact that no doctor stepped into the witness box to
prove the disability of respondent No.1. These submissions are also without
any merit. PW-1 in his evidence has clearly pointed out that he has suffered
amputation of his leg from the knee and has spent Rs.1,50,000/- on his
treatment and medicine. He has also pointed that the grocery shop that he was
running has been shut. In his cross-examination he has reiterated that he has
closed his shop since he met with an accident and is unable to run the said
shop. He has not been cross-examined on the expenditure made on the
medicines.
13. The photocopy of the MLC Ex.PW1/1 is on record. There are various
prescriptions of Jaipur Golden Hospital , Maharaja Agarsen Hospital on record.
These all have been tendered in evidence of PW-1 and have been marked as
exhibits. Merely because they are photocopies it would not be a ground to
discard this evidence placed on record. Strict rules of evidence do not apply to
a Claims Tribunal. There is no merit in the contentions raised by the appellant.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is without any merit and the same is dismissed.
15. All interim orders stand vacated.
16. Statutory amount, if any, be refunded to the appellant.
JAYANT NATH, J
NOVEMBER 10, 2014
rb
