(O&M) Geeta Rani And Anr vs Amrik Singh An Dors on 22 November, 2024

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

(O&M) Geeta Rani And Anr vs Amrik Singh An Dors on 22 November, 2024

1. This is an application filed under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed in default, vide order dated 26.09.2024.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the main case is restored to its original number and taken on Board today itself.

FAO-2455-2006 (O&M)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 15.02.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 26-11-2024 22:42:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155599 FAO-2455-2006 (O&M) -2- Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for short, 'the Tribunal'), vide which the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants, who are the parents of the deceased-Ripudaman, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the claim petition, are that on 16.12.2001 at about 8:00 A.M., son of the claimants/appellants i.e. deceased-Ripudaman Singh was going from Khanna to Gobindgarh on his scooter bearing registration No.PB-26-B-4128 for business purposes. When he reached the vicinity of Khalsa School on G.T. Road, Gobindgarh, a tractor trolley bearing registration No.PB-13-H-9140, being driven by respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent manner, struck against the scooter of Ripudaman. As a result of the accident, Ripudaman sustained multiple severe injuries and died at the spot.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether Ripudaman Singh died due to the accident which took place on 16th December 2001 at 8:15 AM near/opposite Khalsa School, GT Road, Mandi Gobindgarh due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 Amrik Singh while driving offending tractor/trolley No.PB-13-H-9140? OPP. (2) Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effect?

OPR 3.




                                     2 of 7
                 ::: Downloaded on - 26-11-2024 22:42:19 :::
                                     Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155599




FAO-2455-2006 (O&M)                                              -3-

(3) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.

(4) Relief.

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the claimants/appellants filed the present appeal for setting aside the impugned award dated 15.02.2006 and for grant of compensation on account of death of their son Ripudaman.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants contends that the claim petition of the appellants was dismissed only on the ground that no accident took place with tractor trolley.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents argues on the lines of the award and contends that the award has rightly been dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

9. Relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:-

"ISSUE NO. 1:

12. PW1 Narinder Kumar while appearing in the witness box deposed that on 16.12.2001 at about 8.00 am Ripudaman Singh was going from Khanna to Gobindgarh on his scooter No. PB-

26B-4128 for business purposes. When he reached near Khalsa School, G.T. Road, Gobindgarh tractor trolley No. PB-13-H- 9140 came from behind driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the scooter of Riipudaman. As a result of this, Ripudaman received injuries 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 26-11-2024 22:42:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155599 FAO-2455-2006 (O&M) -4- and died at the spot. Scooter was being driven at normal speed on correct side.

13. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was traveling in his car No. PB-26C/0824. He came to know the name of the driver of the tractor after the accident in the hospital. He had appeared as a witness in the criminal case and his statement was recorded. Said statement was exhibit R-

1. He could not tell if he had made the statement correctly in the criminal case. He might have stated in the criminal case that he did not know the number of the tractor or name of the driver or that he could not identify the accused in the Court. This witness was duly confronted with the statement Ex.R1. He further deposed that respondent No.1 might have been acquitted in the criminal case.

14. Ex.R5 is the copy of the judgment in the criminal case which was decided on 7.5.2003 by Shri S.S. Panesar, PCS, Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh. Perusal of the same reveals that accused was acquitted of the charge framed against him as PW2 Narinder Kumar eye witness/complainant stated that some up identified persons had caused the accident. Ex.R1 is the copy of the statement of PW2 Narinder Kumar made in the criminal case. Perusal of the same reveals the said witness had deposed that he could not tell the number of the tractor nor could disclosed the name of the tractor driver and could not identify him. He could not identify the accused present in the Court. PW1 Narinder Kumar is none else other than father of the deceased Ripudaman. Said witness in the criminal case had failed to tell the number of the offending tractor and had failed to identify the driver of the tractor. As such no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW1 Narinder Kumar with regard to mode of accident because said witness had taken different stand in the criminal trial than the 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 26-11-2024 22:42:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155599 FAO-2455-2006 (O&M) -5- one taken by him in this Court. Although the judgment of the criminal court is not binding on this court yet the fact that PWl had deposed differently in the criminal trial is relevant for the purpose of decision of this issue. I am conscious of the fact that provision has been incorporated in the 'Motor Vehicle Act' to provide speedy compensation to the victim of an accident. Said provision has social purpose to achieve but the claimants are required to lead cogent and convincing evidence to prove their case. However, in the present case, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW1 Narinder Kumar with regard to the mode of accident. Claimants have thus, failed to prove this issue. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the claimants and in favour of respondents."

10. A perusal of the above shows that the Narinder Kumar was examined as PW-1, who stated about the incident of accident and during his cross-examination, he deposed that he was travelling in his car bearing registration No.PB-26C-0824. Further deposed that he came to know the name of the driver of the tractor after the accident in the hospital. He appeared as a witness in criminal case and proved his statement as Ex.R1. The learned Tribunal has totally ignored his statement, whereas the factum of accident was proved by his statement. Even in his cross-examination, there was no discrepancy. Only on relying upon Ex.R5 i.e. the copy of the judgment in the criminal case, which was decided on 07.05.2003 by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh, whereby respondent No.1 was acquitted, learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. The reasoning given by the learned Tribunal is that PW-1 Narinder Kumar is the father of 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 26-11-2024 22:42:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155599 FAO-2455-2006 (O&M) -6- the deceased-Ripudaman and he failed to tell the number of the offending tractor and could not identify the driver of the tractor. Therefore, his testimony cannot be relied upon, is not acceptable to this Court since statement of father, whose son died in an accident, cannot be falsified only on the ground that he failed to tell the number of the offending tractor and could not identify the driver of the tractor.

11. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Smt. Smitha Anil Kumar and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. passed in Civil Appeal No.2995 of 2023 decided on 17.04.2023 has held as under:-

"10. In so far as the accident, the very manner in which it had occurred is, when the driver of the lorry had taken a right turn from the main road, and the allegation was that such turn was taken without indicating appropriate signal and therefore, the accident had occurred since the deceased, who was behind, could not avoid the lorry. There is no contrary evidence available on record to dispute this position. The mere acquittal of the driver of the lorry in the criminal case cannot weigh against evidence and manner of consideration made by the MACT keeping in view that the standard of proof required, being different in these proceedings."

12. Keeping in view the law laid down in the above judgment by Hon'ble the Apex Court, mere acquittal of the driver of the offending vehicle in the criminal case does not absolve the liability, as standard of proof in motor accident matters is one of the preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.





                                   6 of 7
                ::: Downloaded on - 26-11-2024 22:42:20 :::
                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155599




FAO-2455-2006 (O&M)                                               -7-

13. Therefore, the finding given by the learned Tribunal on issue No.1 is set aside. The present appeal is allowed. Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the appellants and against the respondents.

14. Since this matter pertains to the year 2006 and no finding is given by the learned Tribunal on Issues No.2 and 3, therefore, the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to decide the claim petition on Issues No.2 and 3 on day to day basis within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

15. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 10.12.2024.

16. The Insurance Company is hereby directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

17. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Tribunal.

18. Disposed of accordingly.

19. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 22.11.2024 Virrendra Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes Whether reportable : Yes 7 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 26-11-2024 22:42:20 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court