NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present judgment will dispose of F.A.O. No. 179/82 as well as Cross Objections, C.M. No. 3317/82 filed by the respondent/claimant. The brief facts of the case are that Sunil Kumar, aged about 22 years was driving the Ambassador car bearing Registration No. UPH 6922 going from his residence to Nangloi at about 9.30 a.m. on 27th June, 1973. When he reached Ring Road, Oil Tanker bearing Registration No. DHG 728 driven by respondent No. 2, Suraj Prasad and owned by respondent No. 3 came from the opposite direction at a fast speed without blowing any horn and dashed against the car of the respondent/claimant. It was alleged that the tanker came at such high speed that its driver could not control it even after the impact and stopped it at some distance from the place of the accident and the respondent received multiple injuries on his body and his left hand received long and deep cut injuries. The respondent was removed to Delhi Nursing Home where he remained admitted as indoor patient for three days. The said vehicle was insured with appellant Insurance Company. The claim for compensation was made in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Respondent No. 2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11th April, 1974. It was alleged that respondent/claimant must have obtained claim for damage to the car from the Insurance Company with which it was insured. On merits, the facts about the driver, owner and Insurance Company were not denied. The factum of accident was admitted but it was denied that it was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 2. It was further pleaded on behalf of respondent 3 that maximum liability of the Insurance Company as regards damage to the car was limited to Rs. 2,000/-. The following issues were framed:

(2.) THE learned Judge on appreciation of evidence on record, particularly of PW 2 Roshan Lal who was eye-witness of the occurrence and the site plan Exhibit PW 5/1 came to the conclusion that the Tanker came to the wrong side of the road and thereafter hit against the car. It was for the driver respondent No. 2 to prove as to how he was not negligent to the accident and as to how the accident was inevitable and beyond his control. These averments have not been pleaded or proved. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.

(3.) THE learned Judge then assessed the amount of compensation as payable to the respondent on other heads. The respondent claimant received multiple abrasions on right hand, fore-arm and shoulder and lacerated wounds on the left elbow. The wounds had been stitched. The Tribunal noted that respondent had been discharged within three days which showed that he had not received any major injury and the injuries suffered by him were thus simple in nature. The claimant in this background was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- on account of injuries sustained and Rs. 500/- for pain and suffering which was considered as reasonable and just. In the ultimate analysis and on the basis of evidence on record the learned Judge awarded the following compensation under the respective head: