Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sham Sunder vs Gurnam Singh And Others on 12 December, 2008
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
F. A. O. No. 624 of 1997
Date of Decision: December 12, 2008
Sham Sunder ...........Appellant
Versus
Gurnam Singh and others ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma,Advocate for
Mr. Ashit Malik,Advocate, for the
appellant.
Mr. Vishal Chaudhary, Advocate for the
New India Assurance Company Ltd.
* * *
Sabina, J.
This is an appeal filed against the award dated 2.11.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal).
The case of the claimant, as stated in claim petition, in brief, is that on 4.6.1992 at about 3.00 A.M., claimant was driving his truck No. HR-01-A-9295 from Shivalik Breweries Bhagarpur near Chandigarh to Bihar. When he reached near Taraori bye-pass near village Baldi GT road, two trucks No. PIS 9008 and PAT 4756 driven by Gurnam Singh and Jagir Singh in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction. The said drivers of the truck were trying to overtake each other. Claimant stopped his truck on the kacha portion of the metalled road to avoid the possibility of any accident but drivers of the two on-coming trucks could F. A. O. No. 624 of 1997 -2- not control their vehicles and truck No. PIS 9008 struck against the claimant's truck and turned turtle. Truck No. HR-01-9295 also struck against the truck driven by the claimant. On account of this accident, claimant suffered multiple injuries. Hence, claim petition was filed.
Notice of the claim petition was issued to the respondents and they filed their written statements. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-
"1. Whether the accident took place on account of careless, rash and negligent driving of truck No. PIS 9008 by its driver Gurnam Singh and in that accident claimant Sham sunder received injuries?OPP
2. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HR-01-A-9295 by Sham Sunder and in that accident Harbhajan Singh driver of truck No. PAT 4756 lost his life? OPR
3. Whether Gurnam Singh, Sham Sunder and Harbahajan Singh were not holding valid driving licences at the time of accident; if so to what effect? OPR (Insurance Companies)
4. Whether any of the vehicles involved in the accident was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, if so to what effect? OPR (Insurance Companies)
5. Whether any claim petition is bad on account of mis-joinder or non-joinder of necessary parties?OPR
6. How much compensation the claimants of each of the cases are entitled and from whom? OPP
7. Relief."F. A. O. No. 624 of 1997 -3-
Parties led their evidence in support of their case. Vide the impugned award, learned Tribunal allowed Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the appellant on account of no fault liability and aggrieved by the same, claimant has filed the present appeal.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Appellant proved on record DDR No.11 dated 5.6.1992 which was recorded at 2.30 P.M. on the basis of the statement of Gurnam Singh, In the DDR, it was averred that when three trucks reached near Baldi and one tractor trolley suddenly came from the side of village Baldi on the metalled road, in order to avoid collision with that truck trolley, Sham Sunder turned his truck No. HR-01-A-9295 towards his right hand and in this attempt, his truck struck against truck No. PIS 9008 coming from the opposite direction being driven by the informant Gurnam Singh. Since, the truck of Gurnam Singh was loaded, it turned turtle. Truck of Sham Sunder struck against truck No. PAT 4756. The accident had taken place as a matter of chance and none of the drivers was negligent in driving his truck.
The appellant never filed any complaint against the incorrect recording of the DDR. The facts mentioned in the DDR were pleaded by the Insurance Company in its written statement but no replication was filed by the appellant to the said written statement to the effect that the DDR had not been correctly recorded. Although DDR was not lodged by the appellant yet he has himself proved the same on record and has,thus, placed reliance on the same. Although DDR is not a substantive piece of evidence yet it reflects the first version regarding the F. A. O. No. 624 of 1997 -4- accident and as such, it cannot be brushed aside. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal rightly held that the accident had not taken place due to negligence of the drivers of any of the three trucks involved in the accident.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment Gurdeep Kaur vs. Tarsem Singh 2008(2) RCR (civil) 774 wherein it was held that the FIR was often lodged in haste and same could not be a substituted for evidence giving the exhaustive version of the occurrence. Statement before the Tribunal are made on a solemn information, whereas, FIR is not lodged on a solemn information. However, the said judgment fails to advance the case of the appellant as it is on the different facts. In the present case, in the report regarding the accident it was informed to the police that the accident had taken place per chance and none of the drivers of three trucks involved in the accident was negligent. Since the said DDR was not challenged by the claimant nor the claimant had lodged any FIR to the effect that the accident had occurred due to negligence of other drivers while driving their offending trucks, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of the claimant with regard to the manner of accident.
Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment in Bhagwani Devi vs. Krishan Kumar Saini and others 1986 ACJ 331 wherein it was held that non-production of driver, who was driving the vehicle involved in the accident led to drawing of adverse inference against him. However, in the present case, the testimony of the claimant himself with regard to the manner of accident fails to inspire confidence and as such, the factum of non-production of respondent No.1 becomes irrelevant. Hence, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is not applicable to F. A. O. No. 624 of 1997 -5- the facts of the present case.
Accordingly, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Sabina)
December 12, 2008 Judge
arya