RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KANAK KATIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The insurer of Maruti Car UP 26D-7002 owned by respondent No. 2 has challenged the award dated 16.2.2012 passed by MACT/Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Bareilly whereby compensation of Rs. 9,05,546.00 have been awarded to respondent No. 1 on account of grievous injuries sustained by her in motor accident. It appears that claimant 26-years' old Km. Kanak Katiyar, a student of BDS 3rd year was returning home alongwith her grand mother on her Scooty UP 26H-7855 and at about 12.30 p.m. the driver of aforesaid Maruti car dashed with vehicle from behind injuring both of them. The claimant suffered serious injuries on her head and all over the body. She was taken to Sri Ganga Charan Hospital,. Bareilly for treatment where she was treated as indoor patient up to 7.2.2009 and thereafter referred to higher centre. She went in comma and thereafter admitted in Fortis Hospital, Noida where she underwent head surgery and admitted till 23.3.2009. It was alleged that the claimant was doing job with a private doctor alongwith her studies and she was earning Rs. 8000/- per month. She filed claim petition for an award of Rs. 49.50 lacs. The owner of the vehicle contested the claim petition inter alia stating that the claimant is responsible for the accident and false report has been lodged and with undue pressure charge sheet has been filed by the police. He claimed that the Maruti car was insured with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Bareilly. The appellant filed written statement denying all the allegations of the claimant and stated that the petition has been filed in collusion with the owner of the Maruti car. The learned Tribunal after recording evidence led by the parties, allowed the claim petition in part as stated above. Aggrieved, the insurer has come up in appeal.

(2.) We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant at length and perused the impugned award.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the involvement of Maruti car is highly doubtful and at best it is a case of contributory negligence. The accident has not been disputed on behalf of the owner of the Maruti car. As regards the manner of accident the claimant has herself appeared in the witness box and has also examined Vinod Kumar Gangwar PW 2 as eye witness of the accident. The consistent case of the claimant is that the Maruti car hit her Scooty from behind, however, at one place the claimant has stated in her cross-examination that the side of the car dashed with her Scooty but again she has reiterated that the car hit her Scooty from behind. In our opinion, it does not make any difference. The statement of a witness is to be read a whole and not in piece meal. Even a truthful witness sometimes get confused during cross-examination before any Court or Tribunal, when he or she is subjected to twisty and mind boggling questions at the hands of skilled counsel for the other side. In such a situation it is duty of the Court to separate chaff from the gain and find out the truth. It is important to note that in this case the opposite parties did not lead any evidence to rebut the contention of the claimant about the manner of accident. The claimant has also stated that she was going on left side of the road with moderate speed carefully and the learned Tribunal has observed that there was no occasion for the claimant to avoid the accident, so there was no possibility of the claimant having contributed in the accident.