JUDGMENT
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.
1. This letters patent appeal under Clause 10 of the letters Patent arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in First Appeal against order No. 836 of 1985 dated 24.11.1989.
2. The appellant was proceeding on his Scooter bearing NO. MHI-2641 from Sector 20 towards road between Sector 20 and 33 in Chandigarh City. The first respondent Jagat Mohan alongwith pillion rider Dr. B.D. Chugh Were proceeding on the road between Sector 20 and 33 towards Ambala. Both the vehicles met with an accident causing injuries to the appellant as well as Dr. B.D. Chugh who was the pillion rider of Motor-Cycle No. 8181. Both of them filed claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal. Dr. B.D. Chugh filed MACT No. 10 of 1983 while the appellant filed MACT No. 25 of 1983. As the vehicle of the appellant was insured, the Insurance Company was impleaded as a party to MACT No. 10 of 1983. Both the applications were taken up for trial by the Tribunal, as they arise out of the same accident. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 28.3.1995 held that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the Scooterist-appellant herein. And accordingly, awarded a compensation to Dr. B.D. Chugh and dismissed the claim petition of the appellant. In view of its finding, the accident took place as a result of the negligent driving on the part of the appellant.
3. Dr. B.D. Chug filed FAO No. 856 of 1985 claiming compensation. FAO No. 856 of 1985 was disposed of on May 26, 1988. The Appeal filed by the appellant in FAO No. 836 of 1985 was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence, this letters patent appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the finding of the Tribunal as confirmed by the learned Single Judge that the appellant was negligent and he was responsible for causing the accident, was not based on proper appreciation of the evidence and, therefore, the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing his claim petition.
5. Though ordinarily, this Court in letters patent appeal will not re-appreciate the evidence and disturb the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge yet we have gone through the evidence to find out whether there is any error in appreciating the evidence in regard to the negligence. Dr. B.D. Chugh who was pillion rider on the Motor-Cycle driven by the first respondent was examined as PW4. According to him on the date of accident i.e. on 18.11.1982, he was on the pillion of the motor-cycle HRA No. 8181 driven by the first respondent at about 11.10 A.M. At the chowk, a scooter driven by the appellant came from left hand side at a fast speed and hit the motor-cycle as a result of which the motor-cycle fell down and he became unconscious. It is further stated that there is a small crossing near the place of occurrence and there is a divider of the road between Sector 20 and 33 and the accident took place just near the divider. He denied the suggestion that the Motor-cycle driven by the first respondent hit this scooter on the back portion. The first respondent examined himself as RW1. He also deposed that the motor-cycle came from the side lane to Sector 20 and when he practically cross the chowk, this scooter driven by the appellant hit the motorcycle in the middle, causing injury to the leg of Dr. B.D. Chugh. The appellant who examined himself as RW2 deposed that he had to across the road and he was near the divider and traffic was coming from Ambala side and a motor-cycle came towards Chandigarh and according to him, the motorcycle hit his scooter at a right angle on the rear. He further stated that the chowk of Sectors 20 and 30 towards Ambala is about 600-700 yards away from the place of accident. He further stated that he cannot say if Dr. Chugh was occupying the pillion on the motor-cycle. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has not given any complaint to the police. Admittedly, the accident took place at a small crossing near the divider of the road. Admittedly, the appellant was coming from side road in Sector 20 while the motor-cycle driven by first respondent was going on the main road from Ambala. When a person is entering into the main road, it is his duty to observe the traffic on the main road and then only take a turn to enter the main road.
6. On a reading of the evidence, we are of the opinion that the appellant has not taken this precaution. It is in the medical evidence that the leg of Dr. B.D. Chugh was injured. From the evidence of this case, the said injury can only be caused after the scooterist hit the motorcycle at the middle. This goes to show that the appellant was negligent in driving the scooter. We are therefore, of the opinion that the tribunal and the learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant was negligent in driving the scooter and he was responsible for causing the accident.
7. The accident took place on 18.11.1982. It is in the evidence of RW3 Dr. Capt. R.A. Singh that the appellant was admitted in the Command Hospital and he sustained abrasions on right knee, left knee, left calf, muscle, right elbow and left wrist and there was fracture of lower end of both bones forearm and he was discharged from the Hospital on 22.11.1982. His evidence also shows that there was restriction of movements and he cannot lift heavy weight and with the advancement of age he is likely to get pain in the left wrist.
8. Section 92(A) was introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 by Amendment Act 47. of 1982. It came into force w.e.f. 1.10.1982; i.e. before the date of accident 18.11.1982. As per the said Section where the death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section. Under Sub Section 2 of Section 92(A), the amount of compensation which shall be payable under Sub-section (1) in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be fixed sum of seven thousand five hungered rupees. The first respondent was not negligent and he was not responsible for causing accident resulting permanent disablement of the left wrist of the appellant. Liability has been fastened on him Under Section 92(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended in 1982. Under Sub-section 3 of Section 92(A) of the Act, it is not necessary for the appellant to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. Under Sub-section 4 of Section 92(A) the claim for compensation under Sub-section (1) of that Section shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such permanent disablement be reduced on the basis ‘of the share of such person in the responsibility for such permanent disablement.
9. In view of the specific provisions as contained in Sub Section 4 of Section 92(A) of the Act, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to recover the amount mentioned in Sub-section 2 of Section 92(A) for permanent disablement to left wrist and restriction of movements sustained by him due to the accident.
10. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the first respondent was not negligent and the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the appellant, he is still entitled to get compensation of Rs. 7500/- as provided Under Section 92(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act as discussed above.
11. We accordingly, allow the appeal in part and while confirming the finding of the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge in regard to the negligence, award a sum of Rs. 7500/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident payable by the first respondent Jagat Mohan. There will be no order as to costs.