HARBANS SINGH TUTEJA Vs. VINOD NIRMALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant preferred a claim under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that while he was returning from Raipur on his own vehicle Kinetic Honda No. M.P. 26 I.B. 3221, non applicant/Respondent No. 1 who was driving Kinetic Safari No. M.P. 26 -K C 2266 dashed him as a result of which the applicant suffered injuries. He was admitted in Govt. District Hospital from 30 -12 -1999 to 24 -12 -2000 where his left leg was operated and as per the Annexure A -4, the Doctor opined that the permanent disability of the present applicant is 40%. Thereafter, because of complications the applicant was again admitted in another private hospital where his left leg was re -operated and was again constrained to remain there from 16 -5 -2001 to 28 -5 -2001. The Police registered an offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC against Respondent No. 1. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed. Respondent No. 1 owned his responsibility and pleaded guilty and the court imposed a fine of Rs. 1,400/ - on him, in default of payment of fine, he is to undergo additional R.I. for 40 days.

(2.) DURING the accident, Respondent No. 1 had also sustained injuries and he preferred counter -claim. The present applicant filed Claim alongwith the documents and also filed application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act. This was opposed and Respondent No. 1 filed an application (I.A. No. 4) praying that no fault liability should not be granted and the award of compensation be deferred. Respondent No. 1 also filed application stating that in the same accident, he had also sustained certain injuries and filed claim which was registered as Claim Case No. 41/2001. So far as the claim of the present applicant is concerned he filed copies of the charge sheet, FIR, Dehati Nalishi, injury report and certified copies of impugned order and other documents regarding the criminal case pending in the court of JMFC. On the basis of the said documents, it is manifestly clear that Respondent No. 1 was charged for the offence and it is therefore not disputed that the accident had occurred out of the use of vehicle by Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 himself had owned his responsibility and admitted to his guilt. So far as the case against the present applicant is concerned, a criminal case has been registered as 257/2002, but the present applicant has not admitted to his guilt and the said case is still pending.

(3.) IT is pertinent to note that the State of M.P. has framed rules which are known as M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. Chapter IX relates to the Claims Tribunal. Rule 226, 227 and 228 contained in Chapter IX are relevant and quoted hereinbelow: