Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt.Sita Devi And Others vs Ram Chander And Others on 6 November, 2009
Author: A.N.Jindal
Bench: A.N.Jindal
F.A.O.No.807 of 1984 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O.No.807 of 1984 (O&M)
Date of Decision 06.11.2009
Smt.Sita Devi and others
...... Appellants.
VERSUS
Ram Chander and others
...... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.Sudhir Nar, Advocate, for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
*****
A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.12.1993, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (herein referred as 'the Tribunal'), dismissing the claim petition, filed by the claimants- appellants (herein referred as 'the claimants') on account of the death of Sant Ram, in a motor vehicular accident.
In nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 28.06.1992, Sant Ram (now deceased) was driving his scooter bearing registration No.HN- 4284 to village Bhagal from his fields. When he reached in the area of village Diwana, Tehsil Pehowa, the respondent No.1 Ram Chander while driving tractor bearing registration No.HR-01-9006 rashly and negligently came from the side of Pehowa. A truck bearing registration No.HYE-5265 was following the said tractor. Respondent No.1 dashed the tractor, against the scooter, resultantly, Sant Ram suffered injuries. Ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the truck bearing registration No.HYE-5265. However, claim petition was preferred against the tractor driver i.e. Ram Chander-respondent No.1 F.A.O.No.807 of 1984 (O&M) 2 and the insurer of the tractor as also the owner of the tractor.
The claim petition was contested by the respondents, who denied the allegations and submitted that no such accident took place with the tractor in question. The deceased had fallen down by chance from the scooter and suffered injuries. Suraj Bhan had given such information to the police on 29.06.1992 . The police also recorded the statements of Ajmer Singh, Anant Ram, Samel Singh and Bhupinder Singh, resident of village Bhagal in this regard. The Daily Diary Report No.38 dated 29.06.1992 was also recorded in this respect. During investigation, it also came to light that the brakes of the scooter were defective. Eventually, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether on 28.06.1992 in the area of village Diwana, Tehsil Pehowa, death of Sant Ram was caused by rash and negligent driving of tractor No.HR-01-A-9006, driven by Ram Chander-respondent No.1, as alleged ? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount the petitioners are entitled to receive and from whom ? OPP
3. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondent No.1, as alleged ? OPR
4. Whether respondent No.1 did not possess the valid licence at the time of accident ? OPR
5. Relief.
Ram Kumar (PW1) while claiming himself to be the eye witness stated that he recorded the D.D.R. against respondent No.1 and case was lodged against him. Ram Chander PW2, deposed that on 28.06.1992 he noticed a scooter following the tractor in village Diwana and at that time a truck was coming and the truck driver gave horn and the scooter driver got F.A.O.No.807 of 1984 (O&M) 3 perplexed and dashed the scooter against the bumper of the tractor. Even if this statement is taken to be correct then it was not the tractor driver who was at fault but the deceased. During the cross-examination, Ram Chander (PW2) admitted that he did not inform the matter to the police and had rendered no help to the injured at the time of accident. He also states that police had contacted him after two months in his village. He did not inform anybody in the village about the accident, therefore, the testimony of Ram Chander being not trustworthy, could not be placed reliance and is not sufficient to prove the negligence of respondent No.1 in driving the tractor. Copy of the D.D.R. Ex.R1 clearly indicates that Suraj Bhan was the informant to the police. He has simply stated in the Daily Diary Report that on 29.06.1992 his elder brother Sant Ram was found dead at the spot and the scooter was lying near his dead body. This report indicates that Suraj Bhan did not witness the accident. Ram Chander (PW2) has cleverly given twist to the prosecution version in order to disturb the original version as set out in the D.D.R. and lend unnecessary support to the claimant's case. His testimony lacks credibility, therefore, no reliance could be placed over the same. In these circumstances, the FIR Ex.P1 recorded lateron at the instance of Ajmer Singh could only be said to be an after thought. Even Ajmer Singh was also not examined. Eventually, it could safely be inferred that the appellants have badly proved if the accident is a result on the fault of respondent No.1 Ram Chander.
No grounds to interfere.
Dismissed.
(A.N.Jindal) Judge 06.11.2009 mamta-II