NITIN BHARDWAJ Vs. RAJEEV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal, stands, directed by the owner, and, the driver of the offending vehilce concerned, against the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, H.P., upon MAC Petition No. 45-S/2 of 2013, whereunder, compensation borne in a sum of Rs.1,55,887.00, alongwith interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 6% per annum, and, commencing from, the date of petition till realization thereof, stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, jointly and severally burdened, upon, the appellants herein.

(2.) The only submission addressed before this Court by the learned counsel, appearing for the appellants, for invalidating the impugned award, (i) is, rested upon the factum, that, with the ill-fated occurrence, purportedly involving the offending vehicle, taking place on 1/2/2013, and, with Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2, Ex.P- 3, and, Ex.P-5, all respectively standing drawn, much subsequent thereto, (ii) thereupon, with the drawing, of, the disability certificate, borne in Ex.PW5/A, also occurring much belatedly, rather therefrom, on, 26/7/2014, (iii) hence, he contends that the injuries reflected in the afore exhibits, remaining unconnected, and, also holding no nexus with the injuries, if any, suffered, by, the disabled claimant, in the ill-fated mishap, involving the offending vehicle, (iv) and, the concomitant effect thereof being qua the compensation, as, assessed on anvil, of the afore exhibits, rather coming within the prohibitive ambit, of, the doctrine, of, remoteness of damages, (v) whereupon, hence, the compensation amount, as determined, by the learned MACT concerned, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant, rather warranting its omnibus effacement, (vi) and, obviously he contends, that, the determination of compensation amount, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant, requiring its being quashed and set aside, apparently, it being anvilled, upon, those injuries preeminently unrelated to the collision, if any, purportedly occurring, inter se, the ill- fated vehicle, and, the disabled claimant.

(3.) However, the afore submission made before this Court, is, emaciated, (a) by the factum of existence, on record of Mark-A, tendered into evidence, during, the course of recording of deposition of PW-1, (b) and, with clear echoings occurring therein, vis-a-vis, the involvement of the offending vehicle concerned, in the relevant collision, which occurred inter se the victim, and, the offending vehicle concerned, (c) besides with articulations being borne therein, vis-a-vis, the defrayable amount, as, compensation to the disabled claimant. In sequel, even though, the afore compromise, hence, carrying the afore echoings, remained unexhibited, yet it therein carries all writings in original, and, also signatures appended thereon, are also all in original, (d) emphasizingly when the owner of the offending vehicle concerned, has scribed his signatures thereon, and, when during, the course of cross-examination of PW-1, no suggestion, was put, thereat to him, by the counsel representing the owner of the offending vehicle, qua it, not carrying the authentic signature of appellant No.1 herein, (e) thereupon, all the recitals borne therein, hence, hold, the profoundest aura of veracity, hence, all the recitals borne therein warrant deference being meted thereto. As a corollary, when Mark-A stood drawn on 29/3/2013, and, hence subsequent to drawing(s) rather respectively of Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5, thereupon, even if the afore MLCs, were drawn subsequent, to the ill-fated occurrence, (f) rather does not render amenable, the making, of, any construction or any inference, that, the injuries reflected therein, and, the treatment received, for, curing the apt injuries, being unrelated to the relevant collision, (g) besides, thereupon, the disability certificate borne in Ex.PW5/A, through also rather stood drawn belatedly, yet the afore factum, also does not render the quantum, of, disability pronounced therein, to hold no nexus, vis-a-vis, Ex.P-1, P- 2, P-3 and P-5, (h) preponderantly, when PW-5 stepped into the witness box, for, proving Ex.PW5/A, no suggestion, during, his cross-examination, conducted by the counsel for appellant No.1 herein, being put to him, with clear explicit underlinings therein, that, the disability remaining unconnected with the MLCs, respectively borne in Ex.P1, P-2, P-3, and, in Ex. P-5. Consequently, it is held that the disability pronounced in Ex.PW5/A, has, a, close nexus with the injuries sustained in the relevant collision, and, also stands connected, vis-a-vis, the apposite MLCs, respectively borne in Ex.P1, P-2, P-3, and, in Ex. P-5.