PARMESHWARI v.

AMIR CHAND & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 2011)

JANUARY 28, 2011 [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

2011(1) SCR 1096

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

GANGULY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Despite service of notice on the respondent Nos.2 and 3, nobody appeared.

3. The appellant is impugning herein the judgment and order of the High Court of  

Punjab and Haryana dated 8th October, 2009 in FAO No.2484 of 2009. An appeal was  

filed before the High Court by the owner of the scooter, Amir Chand, against an award  

dated 12.2.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Hisar,  

awarding to the appellant, compensation of Rs.1,36,547/- along with 9% interest.

4. The contention of the owner of the scooter, before the High Court, was that the  

accident and his involvement in it was not proved and the claim petition should have  

been dismissed. The High Court ultimately upheld the appeal of the owner and set aside  

the findings of the Tribunal.

5.  The material  facts are that on 22.01.2003 at about 12.00 noon the appellant  

herein, the claimant before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 before the High Court, was  

going  from  Baganwala  to  Tosham  on  a  Motor  Cycle  (No.HR 16C-8379),  driven  by  

Balwan with the claimant on the pillion seat. When the Motor Cycle was half a kilometer  

away from Baganwala, Suresh – respondent No.2 herein, came from the other direction  

in another scooter (No.HR 20-5793) from the wrong side and hit  the right leg of the  

appellant as a result of which she fell down and her right leg was fractured and she  

received multiple injuries. The accident was witnessed by certain persons and one of  

them, Umed Singh, took the appellant to Dr. Punia’s clinic from where she was referred  

to Chawla Nursing Home, Hisar, where she remained admitted till 6.2.2003. The matter  

was  also  reported  to  SSP,  Hisar.  Ultimately,  the  claim petition  was filed  by  her  on  

account of her serious injuries.

6. The Tribunal in its judgment considered the evidence of PW.1-Umed Singh as  

also the evidence of  Dr.  Parveen Chawla-PW.2,  Dr.  R.S.  Dalal  as PW.5 apart  from  

examining the appellant-PW.4 and also one Satbir  Singh as PW.3.  It  has come on  

evidence of PW.2-Dr. Parveen Chawla that on 22.1.2003 the appellant was admitted  

with diagnosis of fracture of tibia.  Plating and bone grafting was done by P.W.2-Dr.  

Parveen Chawla and the appellant was discharged on 6.2.2003. The discharge card was  

also proved. PW.3-Satbir Singh deposed that the appellant moved a complaint in the  

office of SSP Hisar on 11.3.2003 and the same was sent in original on 2.4.2003 by SSP  

Hisar to SSP Hanumangarh.  PW.5-Dr. R.S. Dalal also deposed that the appellant was  

examined  on  17.12.2003  by  a  Medical  Board  comprising  of  Civil  Surgeon  Dr.  O.P.  

Phogat, Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. T.S. Bagri and Dr. Dayal himself and on examination  

the appellant was found to have 32% permanent disability.  In view of combined fracture  

of  both  bones  of  her  right  leg,  her  leg  was  shortened  by  two  inch.   The  disability  

certificate was also proved.

7.  The  Tribunal  also  considered  the  evidence  of  RW.1-Amit  Chand  and  RW2-

Suresh Kumar.   Apart  from the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal  also considered the  

detailed account of the accident given by the appellant as PW.4.

8. This Court finds that on consideration of the aforesaid materials on record, the  

Tribunal  granted  compensation  to  the  appellant  to  the  extent  of  Rs.1,36,547/-  with  

interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.

9. This Court finds that the compensation is certainly not an excessive one. Rather  

the computation has been made modestly.

10.  Unfortunately,  this  Court  finds  that  the said well  considered decision of  the  

Tribunal was set aside by the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that even though  

complaint was forwarded to SSP Hisar and was further forwarded to SSP Hanumangarh  

but none from the office of SSP, Hanumangarh came to prove the complaint. The filing  

of  the complaint  by the appellant is not disputed as it  appears from the evidence of  

PW.3-Satbir Singh, who is the Assistant Complaint Clerk in the office of Superintendent  

of Police, Hisar.  If the filing of the complaint is not disputed, the decision of the Tribunal  

cannot be reversed on the ground that nobody came from the office of SSP to prove the  

complaint.   The official  procedure in matters of  proceeding with the complaint  is  not  

within the control of the appellant, who is an ordinary village woman. She is not coming  

from the upper echelon of society. The general apathy of the administration in dealing  

with complaints lodged by ordinary citizens is far too well known to be overlooked by

High Court. In this regard the perception of the High Court in disbelieving the complaint  

betrays a lack of sensitized approach to the plight of a victim in a motor accident claim  

case.

11. The other ground on which the High Court dismissed the case was by way of  

disbelieving the testimony of  Umed Singh-PW.1.  Such disbelief  of  the High Court  is  

totally conjectural.  Umed Singh is not related to the appellant but as a good citizen,  

Umed Singh extended his help to the appellant by helping her to reach the Doctor’s  

chamber in order to ensure that an injured woman gets medical treatment. The evidence  

of Umed Singh cannot be disbelieved just because he did not file a complaint himself.

12. We are constrained to repeat our observation that the total approach of the High  

Court, unfortunately, was not sensitized enough to appreciate the plight of the victim.  

The other so-called reason in the High Court’s order was that as the claim petition was  

filed after four months of the accident, the same is “a device to grab money from the  

insurance company”. This finding in the absence of any material is certainly perverse.  

The High Court appears to be not cognizant of the principle that in a road accident claim,  

the  strict  principles  of  proof  in  a  criminal  case  are  not  attracted.  The  following  

observations  of  this  Court  in  Bimla  Devi  and  others  vs.  Himachal  Road  Transport   

Corporation and others [(2009) 13 SCC 530] are very pertinent.

“In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the  

matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused  

by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the  

claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of  

preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could  

not have been applied.”

13. This Court, therefore, is unable to sustain the judgment given by the High Court  

and quashes the same and restores that of the Tribunal.

14. The entire payment of the compensation amount must be deposited with the  

Tribunal in terms of its award within a period of six weeks from today by a demand draft  

and thereupon the Tribunal will immediately send notice to the appellant and handover  

the demand draft to the appellant only within two weeks thereafter.  The copy of the  

order may immediately be transmitted to the Tribunal.

15. The appeal is, thus, allowed with the aforesaid directions and observations.