Punjab-Haryana High Court
Geeta Devi And Ors vs Ravinder Kumar And Ors on 12 August, 2013
F.A. O. No. 4238 of 2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 4238 of 2011
Date of decision:-12.08.2013
Geeta Devi and ors. ....... Appellants
Versus
Ravinder Kumar and ors. ........ Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Surender Saini, Advocate
for the appellants.
None for respondents no.1,2 and 4.
Mr. Subhash Goyal,Advocate
for respondent no.3.
****
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
This is an appeal brought by the claimants against the award dated 20.04.2011 vide which the claim petition of the appellants brought under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has been dismissed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonipat(for short 'the Tribunal'), on the ground that they could not succeed in proving that the accident is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of dumper bearing registration No. HR-69-8750 by respondent No.1-Ravinder Kumar. Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.16 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. O. No. 4238 of 2011 -2-
Krishan Kumar was pedalling his bicycle on 4.5.2009 from village Kharkhoda to village Rampur Kundal. He was accompanied by Surender, who was moving ahead of the deceased on a separate bicycle. At about 10.30 AM, the two were ahead of a canal on Delhi road towards village Pipli. In the meanwhile, a dumper bearing registration No. HR-69-8750 driven by respondent no.1 came in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed and had hit the bicycle of the deceased from behind, resulting in fatal injuries to Krishan Kumar. The matter was reported to the police and a case bearing FIR No.177 dated 4.5.2009 was registered at Police Station Kharkhoda. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 22 years, working as a labourer under a contractor and also doing part time job of Halwai in marriages and earning `10,000/- per month.
Respondents No.1 and 2 had been proceeded against ex-parte. They did not even file their written statement. It was claimed by respondent no.3 that it is a case of hit and run, in which some other vehicle was involved. It is claimed that a false case has been got registered with the police. The other averments regarding age and income of the deceased were denied.
Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.16 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. O. No. 4238 of 2011 -3-
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Tribunal:-
"1- Whether death of Krishan Kumar took place due to rash and negligent driving of dumper bearing registration No. HR-69-8750 by respondent No.1?OPP 2- Whether the petitioners are the only legal representatives of the deceased and entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom? OPP 3- Whether respondent No.4 is also entitled to get compensation being father of the deceased?OPR 4- Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident?OPR-4 5- Whether the petition is not maintainable in its present form?OPR-3 6- Relief."
Taking evidence of the parties, learned Tribunal decided issue no.1 against the appellants. In view of this finding, the claim petition failed and has been dismissed.
Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.16 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. O. No. 4238 of 2011 -4-
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the accident occurred on 4.5.2009 and the FIR was lodged on the very same day. According to him, there was no delay in lodging the FIR. He has further submitted that Surender , who was accompanying the deceased has been examined before the Tribunal and learned Tribunal did not have any valid reason to discard his statement. He has further submitted that on the other hand respondent no.1 is facing trial in the case registered against him for this accident and he has not made any complaint against his false implication in this case.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, has submitted that learned Tribunal has given valid reasons for discarding the statement of Surender. According to him, those reasons are not shown to be wrong by learned counsel for the appellants. He has, thus, submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition.
Surender, who is claimed in the petition to be accompanying the deceased, has been examined as PW-4. The main question to be answered in this case has been as to whether the dumper bearing registration No. HR-69-8750 was involved in the accident. There is no use of prompt lodging of the FIR in this case because the number of the offending vehicle or name of the driver Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.16 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. O. No. 4238 of 2011 -5- is missing therefrom. Surender PW-4 is claimed to be the eye witness of the occurrence. He did not notice the number of the dumper and name of the driver and the FIR is silent in this regard.
In the FIR, Surender has moreover stated that he was going ahead of the deceased. To make his presence possible and his noticing the number of the truck probable, he has changed his version while appearing in the witness box and has stated that he was following the deceased.
It was claimed that it was one Parveen son of Rohtash, who disclosed the number of the offending vehicle and identity of the driver to the investigating officer. Neither said Parveen nor the investigating officer has been examined in this case. So in the absence of Parveen and the investigating officer, the examination of Surender was of no help to the claimants because he could not notice the number of the offending dumper or know the name of its driver.
Learned Tribunal has taken care to critically analyze the evidence coming on the record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the claimants have failed to prove that the accident is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of dumper No. HR-69 8750 by respondent No.1.
Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.16 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh F.A. O. No. 4238 of 2011 -6-
Mere facing of trial and making of no complaint by respondent no.1 is no ground to hold that the accident is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of dumper in question in the absence of other evidence.
In these circumstances, I find no ground to interfere with the well reasoned finding of learned tribunal on issue no.1. Consequently, the finding of learned Tribunal on issue no.1 is affirmed. The appeal is, therefore, found to have no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 12.08.2013 JUDGE dinesh Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.16 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh