PARMESHWARI versus AMIR CHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 1096 · Decided: 28-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 1 S.C.R. 1096 
A 
PARMESHWARI 
v. 
AMIR CHAND & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 2011) 
B 
JANUARY 28, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Motor Accident -
T-'" , 
Right leg of appellant-claimant fractured - Appellant suffered 
c 32% permanent disability- Her leg was shortened by two inch 
- PW1, one of the witnesses to the accident, took the appellant 
to the doctor's clinic from where she was referred ·to a Nursing 
Home in Hisar - Appellant filed complaint in the office of SSP 
Hisar which was sent in original by SSP Hisar to SSP 
D Hanumangarh - Compensation claim - Tribunal awarded to 
the appellant, compensation of Rs.1,36,5471- along with 9% 
.,,, . 
interest - High Court set aside the award of the Tribunal, inter 
alia, on the ground that none from the office of SSP, 
Hanumangarh came to prove the complaint; that the 
E testimony of PW. 1 was not reliable and further that the claim 
petition was filed four months after the accident -Held: Filing 
of complaint by the appellant is not disputed as it appears 
from the evidence of PW.3, the Assistant Complaint Clerk in 
the office of Superintendent of Police, Hisar - Consequently, 
F the decision of the Tribunal cannot be reversed on the ground 
that nobody came from the office of SSP to prove the 
complaint - PW1 is not related to the appellant but as a good 
citizen, he extended his help to her to ensure that she got 
medical treatment - His evidence cannot be disbelieved just 
G because he did not file a complaint himself - Finding of the 
High Court that as the claim petition was filed after four months 
r 
of the accident, the same was "a device to grab money from 
the insurance company" was perverse in the absence of any 
material - In a road accident claim, strict principles of proof 
H 
1096 
• 
PARMESHWARI v. AMIR CHAND & ORS. 
1097 
in a criminal case are not attracted - Judgment of High Court 
A 
>-
quashed and that of the Tribunal is restored. 
The appellant was going on a Motor Cycle sitting on 
the pillion seat, when respondent no.2, came from the 
other direction in a scooter and hit her right leg as a result 
of which she fell down and her right leg was fractured 
B 
and she received multiple injuries. The appellant suffered 
32% permanent disability and in view of the combined 
fracture of both bones of her right leg, her leg was 
shortened by two inch. 
c 
The accident was witnessed by certain persons and 
one of them, PW1, took the appellant fo the doctor's clinic 
from where she was referred to a Nursing Home in Hisar. 
The appellant filed a complaint in the office of SSP Hisar 
which was sent in original by SSP Hisa.r to SSP 
D 
,i.-.~ 
Hanumangarh. Subsequently, the appellant filed a 
compensation claim petition. On consideration of the 
materials on record, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 
awarded to the appellant, compensation of Rs.1,36,547/-
along with 9% interest. 
E 
The High Court set aside the award of the Tribunal 
on grounds that even though complaint was forwarded 
to SSP Hisar and was further forwarded to SSP 
Hanumangarh but none from the office of SSP, 
F 
Hanumangarh came to prove the complaint; that the 
testimony of PW.1 was not reliable and further that the 
claim petition was filed four months after the accident. 
The Instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the 
High Court. 
G 
~ 
·~ 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. In the instant case, the compensation was 
certainly not an excessive one. Rather the computation 
had been made modestly. [Para 9] [1101-E] 
H 
1098. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 1 S.C.R 
A 
2. The 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 
B complaint. The filing of the complaint by the appellant is 
not disputed as it appears from the evidence of PW.3, 
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 
c 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 from the upper echelon of 
D 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.