Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs Kuldeep Singh Ors on 25 November, 2013
FAO NO. 5560 of 2013(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO NO. 5560 of 2013(O&M))
Date of order:-25.11.2013
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala
..... Appellant
Versus
Kuldeep Singh ors.
.... Respondents
--
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for the appellant.
***
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
C.Ms.No.23425-26CII of 2013 Delay of 09 days in filing the appeal and 75 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons given in the applications. FAO No.5560 of 2013
This is an appeal brought by the owner of the offending vehicle seeking setting aside of the award dated 30.03.2013. Kuldeep Singh alongwith others filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by Kuldeep Singh in a road side accident that took place on 12.09.2010. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur (for short 'the Tribunal') had found no locus-standi with claimants No.2 to 7 to bring this claim petition. Since Kuldeep Singh, the claimant was found negligent to the extent of 50% in causing the accident, his claim petition has been allowed in a sum of Rs.3,91,000/- vide the impugned award by learned Tribunal.
Kumar Dinesh 2013.11.27 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh
FAO NO. 5560 of 2013(O&M) 2 On 12.09.2010 Kuldeep Singh was travelling on his motorcycle Hero Honda No. PB-29D-7620 from Makhu to Zira. He was followed by Shamsher Singh alias Shera. At about 2.30 PM a bus belonging to PRTC, Bathinda came from the opposite side. It came to the wrong side of the road and had hit the motorcycle driven by Kuldeep Singh, on account of which he suffered multiple injuries. He suffered physically as well as mentally on account of the injuries and he became disabled due to the same.
The claim petition has been resisted by the owner and driver of the bus in question. They have not only denied the negligence on the part of respondent No.2 in driving the vehicle but have claimed that the accident is on account of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by Kuldeep Singh only. They have denied the other averments of the claimants and have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
Learned Tribunal found under issue no.1 that the negligence on the part of Kuldeep Singh and Partap Singh, respondent No.2 is 50-50. He had assessed compensation by taking the disability at 50% and has allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs.3,91,000/-.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the finding of learned Tribunal on issue no.1 is erroneous. According to him, learned Tribunal has held the negligence on the part of Kuldeep Singh to be contributory. According to him, the accident took place on account of sole rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by Kuldeep Singh.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the accident took place at a narrow culvert . According to him, seeing the Kumar Dinesh 2013.11.27 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAO NO. 5560 of 2013(O&M) 3 culvert to be narrow and a trolley coming from the opposite side, the driver of the bus had stopped the bus so that the trolley may cross the culvert. According to him, the trolley was also stopped and in the meanwhile, Kuldeep Singh emerged from the back of the trolley and while overtaking the trolley, had come to the wrong side and had hit the bus driven by respondent No.2- Partap Singh.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that there is independent witness examined in this case. It was a running road and people from public could be examined to prove the case. According to him, it was thus, not a case of contributory negligence but sole rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by Kuldeep Singh.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that it is a case where the disability of Kuldeep Singh at 50% pertained to a particular limb. According to him, the disability was not a functional disability and, therefore, the compensation should not have been assessed taking the disability at 50%.
Besides the claimant Kuldeep Singh, who appeared as CW- 1, he has examined Jaswinder Singh as CW-3, who is also an eye witness of the accident. Though Partap Singh has appeared in the witness box in his defence, yet it is a fact that a criminal case has been registered against Partap Singh with regard to this accident. Partap Singh is a driver of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, which is a concern of the Punjab State. It is hard to believe that a false case would be got registered by the police against the driver of a concern of Punjab State. Registration of a case against him is a kind of guarantee to the truth of the case of the Kumar Dinesh 2013.11.27 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAO NO. 5560 of 2013(O&M) 4 claimant, which is not only supported by the claimant but by Jaswinder Singh. It is common knowledge that passersby have no interest in such like things. They do'nt spare their time for appearing as witnesses in such cases and do not offer even to become witnesses in the case. In these circumstances, the statements of Kuldeep Singh and Jaswinder Singh supported by the aforesaid circumstance clearly appear to be reliable. Learned Tribunal has moreover found the negligence to be contributory and I find no reason to differ from the said finding.
The disability of 50% as per the certificate Ex.C-219 is regarding post traumatic stiffness of left knee with total loss of range of motion at left knee with partial foot drop and left side weakness of working of left quadriceps of calf muscles. It cannot be said that this disability would not amount to functional disability. Even if this disability is qua the particular limb, it may turn out to be a little less for the whole body and the compensation in the amount assessed by learned Tribunal could be assessed even thereafter. Hence, I do not find any reason to say that compensation for disability has been assessed on a higher side.
For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to differ from the findings recorded by learned Tribunal in the impugned award. The appeal is, consequently, dismissed in limine.
November 25,2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK )
dinesh JUDGE
Kumar Dinesh
2013.11.27 12:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court,Chandigarh