Sr. No. 13 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: MA No. 405/2010 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. 2nd Floor, Sector 28A, Madhya Margh Chandigarh Through Its Authorized Signatory, Devendra Kumar Gm Claims. …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Advocate. V/s 01. Vijay Chib W/o Sh. Piyar Singh R/o village Berra the. R.S. Pura Dstt. Jammu. 02. M/s Jai Beverages(Pvt.) Ltd., Phase -1, SIDCO COMPLEX, Bari Brahmana, Jammu. …. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Meenakshi Salathia, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 06.03.2025(ORAL) 01. The appellant through the medium of the present appeal has assailed the award dated 23.01.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) Jammu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) whereby in a Claim Petition filed by respondent no.1 under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation in the amount of ₹2,96,200/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, except on component of Loss of future Income has been awarded in favour of respondent no.1 and against the appellant-Insurance Company. 02. It appears that respondent no.1/claimant filed a Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal alleging therein that on 23.06.2004 at about 12.30 pm she was travelling on a Scooter as pillion rider from her native village to Rathana Camp --2-- and on reaching Dablehar the Scooter was hit by a rashly and negligently driven van bearing No. JK02V-5308 as a result of which she fell down and suffered grievous injuries. It was averred by the claimant that from the place of the accident, she was taken to Government Hospital R S Pura where she was given first aid and then referred to Government Medical College Hospital Jammu where she got admitted on 23.06.2004. The claimant sought compensation in the amount of ₹ 12,85000/- from the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. 03. The appellant-Insurance Company contested the Claim Petition by filing its reply. In its reply, the appellant-Insurance Company denied the occurrence and contended that in the instant case the FIR relating to the occurrence has been registered belatedly. It was also claimed by the appellant –Insurance Company in its reply before the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. However, the appellant- Insurance Company admitted the currency of the Policy of insurance of the offending vehicle covering the period of the accident. 04. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: ‘1. Whether accident took place on 23.06.2004 at Vilalge Dableh R. S. Pura due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle NO. 5308 JK02V in the hands of the erring driver in which petionter Vijay Chib sustained grievous injuries? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if swo to what amount and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license to the knowledge of owner of vehicle if so what is its effect?OPR3 --3-- 4. Whether claim petition is hit by the doctrine of non-joinder of necessary parties; if so how? OPR2 5. Whether owner and insurance company of the scooter on which petitioner was riding as pillion are necessary parties, if so how? 6. Relief O.P.Parties.’ 05. The learned Tribunal after recording evidence produced by the respondent- claimant and the evidence produced by the appellant-Insurance Company considered the same and came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place on 23.06.2004 as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver which resulted in the grievous injuries to respondent no.1/claimant. It was also found by the learned Tribunal that the appellant-Insurance Company could not prove the violation of any of the Policy conditions by the insured. While assessing quantum of compensation, the Tribunal on the basis of disability certificate produced by the claimant, according to which she had suffered 30%, permanent disability and taking her monthly income as ₹3000/-, awarded total compensation of ₹2,96,200/- in her favour. Accordingly, the impugned award came to be passed. 06. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on the grounds that there was no cogent and convincing evidence before the learned Tribunal to prove the accident. It has been contended that the learned Tribunal failed to take into account the statement of RW- Manohar Lal and the record produced by the said witness, which clearly demonstrated that there was manipulation in the record of Government Hospital R. S. Pura. It has been contended that the FIR and MLC in the instant case has been registered after several months of the accident which clearly shows that the occurrence has been manipulated in order to extract compensation amount from the appellant-Insurance Company. It has also been --4-- contended that the learned Tribunal has not assessed the compensation amount properly and that the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the claimant is exaggerated. 07. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of appeal, the impugned award and the record of the Tribunal. 08. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much stress on the veracity and genuineness of the factum of accident which has given rise to the impugned award. In this regard the learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the fact that the accident is alleged to have taken place on 26th June 2004 but FIR relating to the alleged accident has been registered on 28th July 2004 on the basis of a direction passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (JMIC) R S Pura. It has been contended that the MLC was registered only on 9th August 2004, which is about one and a half month after the alleged accident. All these facts, according to the learned counsel go as to show that the whole occurrence has been manipulated with a view to extract the compensation from the appellant-Insurance Company. It has been claimed that in fact the accident in question has never taken place. The learned counsel has also contended that there are contradictions in the statement of the claimant as on the one hand she has stated that after the accident, she was taken to Government Medical College Jammu but on the other she has stated that she was initially brought to Government Hospital at R S Pura. According to the learned counsel even the record of the Government Hospital R S Pura appears to be tampered. 09. As per the claim petition, after the accident, the claimant was initially taken to Government Hospital R.S. Pura where she was administered first aid and --5-- thereafter she was taken to Government Medical College Hospital Jammu, where she remained admitted. In her statement before the Tribunal she has stated that as a result of the accident, she suffered injuries to her right leg, left arm and chest as a consequence whereof she went unconscious and when she regained her senses she found herself in Government Medical College, Hospital Jammu where she remained under treatment for three months. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that FIR and MLC was not registered on the date of the accident. She further stated that on the date of the occurrence itself the Police had come to the Emergency Ward of Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu. She has further stated that on the date of the occurrence when she was taken to Government Hospital R S Pura by some unknown person, the Police had conducted its proceedings. 10. The aforesaid statement of the respondent-claimant has to be viewed in the context that after the accident she had gone unconscious and, as such, she must not have been in a position to comprehend exactly as to whether she was first taken to R. S. Pura, Hospital or to Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu .The fact of the matter remains that there is record of the Hospital available in the file of the Tribunal which shows that she was taken to Government Hospital R S Pura on the date of the occurrence whereafter she was taken to Government Medical College, Hospital Jammu on the same day. Copy of the discharge and follow-up card issued by the Government Medical College Hospital Jammu clearly indicates that she was admitted to the said Hospital on 23.06.2004 and was discharged on 26.06.2004. The said record also shows that the respondent – claimant had suffered compound fracture of her right leg. The injury certificate which is issued by the Doctor at R.S. --6-- Pura, Hospital, which is part of the Police Challan, shows that the claimant was first treated at Government Hospital R S Pura and was thereafter referred to Government Medical College Hospital Jammu for treatment of injury no. (ii) which relates to her right leg. As per the said injury certificate the claimant had suffered fracture of Tibia and Fibula. Besides this the Police after investigation of the case filed challan against the offending driver meaning thereby that the Police after assembling the material and evidence relating to the occurrence had come to the conclusion that the accident had taken place and the same had resulted in grievous injuries to the claimant. Accordingly, offences under Section 279/337 RPC were found established against the offending driver. 11. When the aforesaid material on record is read in conjunction with the statement of the claimant, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the accident had taken place which resulted in grievous injuries to the claimant. Merely, because there was delay in registration of FIR and MLC does not falsify the case of the claimant. It has to be borne in mind that the claimant was taken to the hospital by an unknown person and she was unconscious at the relevant time, as such, it is quite possible that she may not have been able to narrate the entire facts to the doctor at the time of her admission. In the face of overwhelming material on record of the Tribunal, her claim that she had suffered injuries due to the accident cannot be disbelieved. 12. Similarly, contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is tampering in the record of the Government Hospital R S Pura is also without any substance. Upon going through the record, this Court could not find out any --7-- substantial insertions in the record that would throw doubt upon the authenticity of the record produced by the respondent before the Tribunal. 13. That takes us to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Once it is established that the claimant had suffered grievous injures to her right leg, which has been proved by the doctor and there is disability certificate on record which shows that she had suffered 30% permanent disability of her right leg, it can by no stretch of reasoning be stated that the compensation of ₹ 2,96,200/- assessed by the Tribunal is on higher side. 14. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed, accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 06.03.2025 SUNITA/PS SUNITA KOUL 2025.03.12 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document