- (1.) THE appellant has challenged the award dated 26.02.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track), Laxmangarh, District Alwar, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.7,16,834/- along with an interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants.
(2.) IN a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the claimant, Sukan Das, aged 48 years old, was a driver in Rashi Roadlines. As a driver, he was paid a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. On 26.06.2008, around 5:30 am, while he was walking on the road, he was struck by a motorcycle, bearing registration No.RJ-02/SG-4141. The motorcycle was being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No.2, Suresh Kumar Verma. Due to the said accident, the claimant lost vision of his right eye. He, therefore, filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. IN order to buttress his case, he examined three witnesses and submitted sixty-six documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, as mentioned above, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.7,16,834/- along with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the presentation of the clam petition i.e. 26.11.2008 till the date of payment. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. Vizzy Agarwal, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, according to the disability certificate, the claimant had suffered only 30% permanent disability due to loss of vision of his right eye. However, the learned Tribunal has taken the disability to be 100%. Thus, it has committed an error. Secondly, the loss of vision in one eye does not disentitle a person from applying for a licence. This is clear from Form No.I and Form No.IA under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Form No.I requires the applicant to declare whether he can see a distance of 25 meters even with one eye or not ? Moreover, Form No.IA requires a medical practitioner to certify that the applicant can distinguish, at a distance of 25 meters, in a good day light, a motor car number plate. According to the learned counsel, there is nothing on record to show that after the accident, the claimant could not distinguish a number plate of a motor car at a distance of 25 meters. Thus, he was entitled to a licence. Thirdly, in the certificate issued by Dr. Suresh Gaira, A.W.3, he did not record that the claimant is "incapable of driving a four wheel vehicle". Since there is no such indication in the certificate issued by him, he was not justified in stating, in his testimony, that "due to the loss of vision in one eye, the claimant is incapable in driving a vehicle". Fourthly, the claimant has himself admitted in his cross-examination that his licence has not been cancelled due to loss of vision in the right eye. Fifthly, according to Schedule I of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, loss of vision of one eye tantamounts to only 30% of permanent disability. Thus, the learned Tribunal was not justified in concluding that "due to loss of vision in one eye, the claimant could not drive a vehicle, Therefore, permanent disability is 100%, as far as a claimant is concerned". Lastly, since the basis of calculating the compensation is unjustified, therefore, the award deserves to be modified by this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the record made available and examined the impugned award. A distinction has to be made between eligibility for getting a licence, and a suitability for driving a vehicle. Although Form No.I and Form No.IA of the Central Rules may make a person eligible to seek a licence even if he/she has lost the vision of one eye, but it does not necessarily make such a person "suitable" for driving. Moreover, it is not the case of the appellant that after having lost vision in the right eye, the claimant had applied for "a fresh licence" and the fresh licence was granted to him. Therefore, merely because Form No.I and Form No.IA of the Central Rules, permit a person, with the loss of vision of one eye, to apply for a licence, the existence of such Forms do not buttress the contention of the appellant that the claimant was suitable or capable of driving a vehicle. Merely because the claimant has admitted that his licence has not been cancelled also does not lead to the conclusion that despite the loss of vision of one eye, he is still capable of driving a vehicle. It is, indeed, a common knowledge that immediately after an accident, licence is not automatically cancelled by the concerned authority. Therefore, if the claimant continues to have his licence, it does not prove the fact that he is "capable of driving a vehicle".
(3.) BOTH in the claim petition and in his testimony, the claimant had clearly stated that "because of the loss of vision in his right eye, he was dismissed from his services as a driver by his employer". He has also stated that he finds it difficult to drive a vehicle. He has also stated that he is incapable of driving a vehicle. His testimony has further been corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Suresh Gaira, who has also stated that "due to the loss of vision in his right eye, the claimant cannot drive a vehicle". Although it is true that such an information has not been mentioned by Dr. Suresh Gaira in the certificate issued by him, but it is not necessary that the entire medical opinion be given in the certificate. Dr. Suresh Gaira is justified in elaborating the consequences of loss of vision in his testimony. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that the testimony of Dr. Suresh Gaira should not be believed, merely because his opinion with regard to the capability of the claimant to drive a vehicle is not mentioned in the certificate, is unacceptable. It is, indeed, trite to state that due to the positioning of both the eyes in the front of the face, Man as an animal who poses biopic vision which permit him to see depth. It is, indeed, common knowledge that the loss of vision of one eye adversely affects the sense of depth. Generally, a person with vision of a single eye sees the space as "a flat plane" rather than as a three dimensional place or in depth. A person who cannot see a space in three dimensions, such a person would pose a hazard to and be dangerous to the public at large. Considering the phenomenon increase in motor accident in India, it would, indeed, be better if a person with loss of vision in one eye were held to be unsuitable for driving. In the present case, both the claimant and the Doctor have testified that the claimant is unable to drive a vehicle due to loss of vision in one eye. Their testimonies have not been shattered in the cross-examination. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in accepting the veracity of their testimonies. It is also to be remembered that claim petitions are civil cases wherein a case is proved by preponderance of probabilities. Thus, the said case are not required to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". After all, the extent of burden of proof in civil cases and criminal cases is different. Moreover, the rigors of the Evidence Act are not applicable to a claim case. [Referred to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. & Anr. Vs. Devilal and Ors, 1991 ACJ 230; Shrawan Kumar Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors., 1995 ACJ 337] ;