Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amir Chand vs Parmeshwari And Others on 8 October, 2009
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
F.A.O. No. 2484 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: October 08, 2009
Amir Chand
.. Appellant
Vs.
Parmeshwari and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the respondents.
A.N. Jindal, J
This appeal preferred by the appellant-owner Amir Chand
(herein referred as 'the appellant ') against the award dated 12.2.2009
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Hisar
(herein referred as 'the Tribunal') awarding compensation to the tune of
Rs.1,36,547/- along with interest @ 9% per annum against the appellant and
respondent No.2 jointly and severally.
The prime contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that since the accident does not stand proved, the claim petition
should have been dismissed.
The brief resume of facts is that on 22.1.2003, at about 12.00
noon, the claimant-respondent No.1 (herein referred as 'the claimant') was
going from Baganwala to Tosham on Motor Cycle No.HR16C-8379 driven
by Balwan, whereas, she was sitting on the pillion seat by putting both her
legs on the either side of the seat. When they were half a kilometer away
from Baganwala towards Tosham, the respondent No.2 Suresh while driving
scooter bearing registration No.HR20-5793 in a rash and negligent manner
came on the wrong side and struck against the right leg of the claimant.
Resultantly, her right leg was fractured and she received multiple injuries.
The accident was witnessed by Balwant Singh and Umed Singh and some
other persons. Umed Singh took the claimant to Dr. Punia's clinic who
referred her to Chawla Nursing Home, Hisar, where she remained admitted
till 6.2.2003. The matter was also reported to the police so also to SSP,
F.A.O. No. 2484 of 2009 -2-
***
Hisar. Eventually, she also filed this claim petition for compensation on account of the injuries suffered by her.
Upon notice, the claim petition was contested by the respondents. Suresh-respondent in his written statement denied the accident so also the other allegations. The appellant contested the claim petition. Similarly, Balwan in his written statement admitted the accident and stated that it took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Suresh.
From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the accident in question resulting into injuries to the petitioner was due to rash and negligent driving of scooter bearing registration No.HR20-5793 by respondent No.1? OPP
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation if so to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
In order to substantiate the issues, the claimant herself appeared in the witness box as PW4 and examined Umed Singh (PW1), Dr. Parveen Chawla (PW2), Satbir Singh (PW3) and Dr. R.S. Dalal (PW5). To the contrary, the respondent examined Amiri Chand (RW1) and Suresh (RW2).
Ultimately claim petition was allowed.
Heard.
Though in the claim petition, it is disclosed that Umed Singh and Balwan respondent No.3 were present at the spot, yet the testimony of both the aforesaid witnesses is not in any way helpful in holding that the accident took place on account of the fault on the part of Suresh. No FIR was lodged either by Balwan Singh or the claimant or Umed Singh. Though it is alleged that the claimant moved an application on 11.3.2003 to SSP, Hisar which was forwarded to the SSP, Hanumangarh, yet no person from the office of SSP, Hanumangarh was examined to prove the complaint. Mere fact that some complaint was filed by the claimant is hardly sufficient to prove the contents thereof. Any way, the absence of the FIR, this belated F.A.O. No. 2484 of 2009 -3- *** complaint is hardly sufficient to establish rashness and negligence of the respondent No.2-driver. Dr. Naveen Chawla examined by the claimant he has not stated anything if claimant suffered injuries on account of the accident. The testimony of Umed Singh could also be said to be an after thought. Had Umed Singh been present at the spot, then he must have come forward to lodge the report against the scooter rider. After suffering injuries on 22.1.2003, no complaint was filed in the court by the claimant against Suresh driver of the offending scooter. However, this claim petition having been filed after four months of the accident could be termed to be a devise to grab money from the Insurance Company by introducing the wrong respondents (i.e. owner and driver). The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the aforesaid circumstances while holding that the respondent- Suresh committed the accident. Consequently, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 stand reversed.
In the wake of aforesaid discussions, this appeal is accepted and the claim petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.
October 08, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge