Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranbir Singh vs Bharpur Singh And Others on 2 May, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO No.4996 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.4996 of 2011
(MACT case No.RT-4/14.2.2008/5.2.2009)
Date of decision: 2.5.2012
Ranbir Singh
...Appellant
Versus
Bharpur Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.AS Bhatti, Advocate for the appellant
Mr.Ashok Bector, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimants.
Mr.Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate
for respondent Nos.4 to 6.
****
Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)
The driver of the offending vehicle has filed the present appeal challenging the award dated 1.3.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Roopnagar, (to be referred as 'The Tribunal') whereby he alongwith owner was held liable to satisfy the award.
The brief facts of the case are that on 14.1.2008, Bharpur Singh and his wife Kulwinder Kaur were going towards Raino Khurd from their village Salahpur on motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-12K-2129. Near the village Salaura, a Tata Safari bearing registration No.DL1CK- 0407, being driven by Ranbir Singh-respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the said motorcycle. As a result thereof, FAO No.4996 of 2011 2 they fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. They were rushed to the Civil Hospital, Ropar, from where, Kulwinder Kaur was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where she succumbed to the injuries on 19.1.2008. The claim petition, filed by the claimants was allowed and the appellant alongwith the owner was held liable to indemnify the award.
Feeling aggrieved with the award, the appellant has preferred the abovementioned appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal wrongly held the appellant guilty for rash and negligent driving. He further contends that the learned Tribunal ignored the delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR by the claimant. However, the appellant in his cross examination has admitted the accident. He further submits that the income assessed by the learned Tribunal is also on the higher side.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly held liable the appellant. He further submits that the deceased was MA, B.A. B.Ed, and the income assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
The learned Tribunal while deciding issue No.1 has held as under:-
"I have thoroughly considered these contentions and have also evaluated the evidence on record produced by the claimant and at the outset, it can be stated that the mere delay in lodging the FIR would not hamper the case of the claimant. It is quite FAO No.4996 of 2011 3 evidence on record that Kulwinder Kaur wife of the claimant had suffered grievous and serious injuries on her person and due to the said injuries she untimely succumbed to death, which fact is also supported by the postmortem dated 20.1.2008 proved on record as Ex.P2. Therefore, when the things were happening at a jet speed and within a short span of 6 days wife of the claimant turned into corpse, then it cannot be accepted that he instead of taking care of his injured wife would run to lodge the FIR. Moreover, the respondent No.1 has not denied the pendency of criminal case in the court of learned CJM, Ropar against him under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC in case FIR No. 10 dated 17.1.2008 and has rather himself placed on record some certified copies of the licence of Ranbir Singh as Ex.D1, as well as the statement of Bharpur Singh, who appeared as PW1 during trial of above said case. This fact is sufficient in concluding that the trial of criminal case is pending against respondent No.1 in the above said court. In Gurdeep Kaur vs. Tarsem Singh 2008(2) Recent Civil Reports 775, it has been held by our own Hon'ble High Court while relying upon 1993(2) PLR 1090 (P&H) that :-
"If the driver is being tried on account of rash and negligent driving in a criminal case in a court of law, it is prima facie safe to hold that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act."
Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pushpa Rana and others 2009 ACJ 287 has held that :-
"(i) certified copy of the criminal court such as FIR, recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of vehicle are documents of sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a FAO No.4996 of 2011 4 civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard."
The survey of above said authorities on the subject involved in the present claim petition would show that the registration of FIR and pendency of trial of the respondent- driver in the criminal court would be sufficient facts to arrive at a conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent act of the respondent-driver. Accordingly, this tribunal has no hesitation in holding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 who was driving his Tata Safari vehicle bearing No.DL-1CK- 0407 on 14.1.2008 in the area of village Salora and thereby causing death of deceased Kulwinder Kaur."
The appellant is facing the criminal trial in the FIR lodged in the case in question. A charge under Section 304A IPC has been framed against him. Therefore, this Court finds no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
However, the income of the deceased i.e. Rs.4000/- per month, assessed by the learned Tribunal, which is adequate as she was MA, B.A. B.Ed and also performing household duties.
In view of the above, no interference is warranted in the well reasoned award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, the present appeal is dismissed.
2.5.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE