Punjab-Haryana High Court
Executive Engineer, Construction ... vs Sant Ram And Ors. on 25 April, 1986
Equivalent citations: 2(1986)ACC332
JUDGMENT S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The challenge here is to the award of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation to the husband and children of Omli deceased.
2. According to the claimants, Omli and her husband Sant Ram were coming on their cycle when the truck HRG-1638 came from the opposite direction at a fast speed and hit into their cycle. It was as a result of this accident that Omli deceased was killed. This happened on August 27, 1980 at about 4 P.M., near the Railway Station, Gurgaon.
3. The version of (he truck driver, on the other hand, was that Omli and her husband without bothering to see to the traffic on the road suddenly tried to cross the road and in haste the deceased struck against a rehri as a result of which she fell on the road and sustained injuries. It was denied that she had received any injury from the truck.
4. The case of the claimants rests upon the testimony of PW 4 Sant Ram who deposed to the accident having occurred as per the manner set forth in the claim application. The only witness examined by the opposite party was RW 1 Nanak Chand, the driver of the truck. He, on his part, deposed to the occurrence having taken place as mentioned in his return, namely, that the deceased was trying to cross the road when she struck against a rehri and suffered injuries which later proved fatal.
5. The Tribunal chose to accept the statement of RW 4 Sant Ram in preference to that of the truck driver Nanak Chand. No exception can indeed be taken to this when regard is had to the fact that injuries, as found by PW 1 Dr. M.S. Rawat on the person of the deceased were clearly such as could not possible have been suffered by the deceased merely by striking against a rehri and falling on the road. The nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the deceased is in consonance with her having fallen after impact with a truck. Further, the photographs on record also show the truck parked near the cycle fallen on the ground, which again is a circumstance tending to corroborate the claimants' version.
6. Taking an overall view of the matter in the light of the circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, it must be held that the Tribunal rightly accepted the claimants' version and consequently its finding on the issue of negligence warrants no interference in appeal.
7. The quantum of compensation awarded in this case stands amply justified by the fact that Omli deceased was a house-wife and the claimants thereby suffered loss of the services of a house-wife and, in addition, evidence also shows that by her labours too, she used to supplement the earnings of the family. The Tribunal, thus, rightly held the claimants entitled to the amount claimed namely Rs. 40,000/-.
8. Finally, there was an attempt to shift the burden of the liability for the compensation awarded on to the respondent-Insurance company. A reference to the material on record would, however, show that a specific plea was raised by the Insurance company to the effect that the truck was. not insured on the date of the accident. To follow this up, Exhibit R.1, the Policy of Insurance relating to this truck was placed on record which clearly shows that it commenced from a date subsequent to this accident. This being so, the Insurance company cannot possibly be held liable for payment of any compensation in this case.
9. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel's fees Rs. 500/-.