TEJINDER SINGH Vs. INDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Judgement shall dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 395 and 830 of 1986. The former has been filed by Inderjit Singh owner and driver of the tempo No. CHW 4257 which was the offending vehicle while the latter has been filed by Mr. Tejinder Singh Gujral Advocate who sustained injuries in the accident. Both these appeals are directed against the award dated 15th March, 1986 made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short the Tribunal) deciding a claim application under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act) filed by Mr. Tejinder Singh Gujral. Reference to the parties in this judgement shall be made from F.A.O. No. 830 of 1986.

(2.) The appellant suffered injuries in a road accident which took place on 6-8-1984 at 9.30 p.m. He was driving scooter No. CHR 6 in Chandigarh and was coming from Sector 33 via Labour Chowk to Sector 7. Near the traffic lights of the crossing of Sectors 22 and 21 he gave horn, used dipper and slowed down his scooter but when he was near the divider, tempo No. CHW 4257 owned and being driven by respondent No.1 came from the side of Sector 20 at a fast speed. The said tempo took a sharp turn, hit the divider and then struck against the scooter of the appellant. As a result, the appellant fell down from his scooter which was also damaged. One Kesar who was coming a little distance behind chased the tempo and stopped it. In the same tempo the appellant in an injured condition was taken to the P.G.I. The appellant filed the claim application under S.110-A of the Act before the learned Tribunal wherein he alleged that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the tempo by respondent No. 1. The damage caused to the scooter was to the tune of Rs. 1,000/-. The appellant himself sustained multiple injuries and also fracture of his ribs. He has become permanently disabled due to injuries. He spent Rs. 8,000/- on his treatment up to the date of filing of the application i.e. 23-11-1984. He further alleged that he had been advised further operations to avoid the fear of paralysis. These operations would be done at Jaslok Hospital, Bombay which would involve expenditure of Rs. 80,000/-. He claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- including the damages for mental agony, pain and suffering and loss of income. In the application as originally filed the damages claimed were to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- only. The application was, however, amended with the leave of the learned Tribunal in January, 1986 and the claim for damages was raised to Rs. 5,00,000/-.

(3.) In his written statement respondent No. 1 alleged that he was bringing the tempo at a normal speed. In order to avoid the accident he took the tempo to the side of the divider and hit against it. Thereafter the tempo hit the scooter of the appellant. He alleged that the claim made by the appellant was excessive. The Insurance Company respondent No. 2 also filed its reply to the claim application. It denied its liability, inter alia, on the ground that there is no valid document such as a copy of the Insurance Policy. The claim made in the application was styled as vague and incomplete in material particulars not disclosing any cause of action against respondent No. 2. The claim was also labelled as highly exaggerated and inflated. The averments in the application that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2 at the time of accident was admitted but respondent No. 2 denied its liability.