Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M;)Lacchman Singh vs Binder Singh And Others on 19 December, 2014
FAO-1732-1993 1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana, at
Chandigarh
FAO-1732-1993
Date of decision: 19.12.2014
Lachhman Singh ..Appellant
Versus
Binder Singh and others ..Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahavir S. Chauhan
Present: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. J.S.Chatrath, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
******
Mahavir S.Chauhan, J.(Oral)
This is claimant's appeal against award dated 30.7.1993 whereby learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (for short, ''the Tribunal'') has dismissed claimant's application for compensation on the ground that he has not been able to prove involvement of the truck bearing registration No. PNC 4475 in the accident and negligence of its driver, namely, Binder Singh, respondent No.1 to be responsible therefor.
Appellant's plea before the learned Tribunal was that on 22.4.1991 while posted as a Head Constable at Police Station Rampura Phul, he, along with Constable Buta Singh, went for patrolling on a motor-cycle. At about 9.30 P.M., they reached the NIRMAL KANT 2014.12.24 14:12 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh FAO-1732-1993 2 Bye-pass, Constable Buta Singh asked him to stop the motor-cycle as he wanted to urinate. Appellant accordingly stopped the motor- cycle and Buta Singh went for urinating. In the meantime, a truck bearing registration No. PNC 4475 driven by first respondent at a fast speed came from behind and hit the standing motor-cycle, as a result, claimant-Lachhman Singh who was sitting on the motor-cycle received injuries on various parts of his body. A criminal case was registered in respect of the injuries.
It was further stated by the claimant-appellant that for the treatment of injuries so suffered by him, he had to undergo medical treatment at Rampura Phul and then at Medical College, Faridkot. He also took treatment from Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was spent on his treatment. He also claimed that Rs. 20,000/- as expenditure on special diet and further stated that his right leg was amputated.
Case of the appellant was contested by the respondents and from the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the injuries caused to claimant Lachhman Singh was due to the rash and negligent act of driving of respondent No.1 Binder Singh?OPP
2. To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from whom?OPP
3. Whether respondent No.2 had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident?OPR
4. Whether the respondent owner of the truck had no NIRMAL KANT 2014.12.24 14:12 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh FAO-1732-1993 3 valid registration/fitness certificate? If so, to what effect?OPR
5. Whether respondents No.1 and 2 had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company?OPR.
6. Whether respondent No.1 was not driving the alleged vehicle under the employment and under instructions of the owner?OPR
7. Relief.
Both the sides adduced evidence and were heard by the learned Tribunal.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appraisal of the evidence, learned Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not able to prove the factum and manner of accident and as such, while returning finding on issue No.1 against the appellant, avoided decision on issue No.2 pertaining to entitlement of the appellant to receive compensation. Issue No.3 with regard to validity of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was however, decided against the insurer of the offending vehicle.
I have heard learned counsel for the appearing parties. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that proceedings before the learned Tribunal being summary in nature, strict rules of evidence were not applicable. Learned counsel refers to Girdhari Lal vs. Radhey Shyam, 1993(2) PLR 109, Sudama Devi and others vs. Kewal Ram and others CXLIX-(2008-1) The NIRMAL KANT 2014.12.24 14:12 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh FAO-1732-1993 4 PLR 444 and Ram Sarup and others vs. Om Parkash and others CXLIX-(2008-1) The PLR 461, to contend that even pendency of criminal proceedings against the driver of the offending vehicle have been held to be sufficient to conclude that the driver facing such criminal proceedings was negligent in driving the offending vehicle which resulted into the accident and in the case in hand the first respondent has been convicted by the criminal Court of the offence of negligent driving. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in such a circumstance, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal as regards the occurrence cannot be sustained.
The contention, however, has been resisted by learned counsel for the insurer by submitting that out come of criminal proceedings is not at all relevant for disposal of a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short,''the Act'') and the learned Tribunal has to reach its own conclusion on the basis of the evidence adduced before it.
It is not in dispute that in the cited judgments, it has been held that only on account of pendency of criminal proceedings, the Tribunal under the Act can raise a presumption that driver of the offending vehicle was negligent and that the accident was result of such negligence of the driver. When a presumption can be raised against the driver of the offending vehicle only on the basis of pendency of criminal proceedings, it seems ridiculous that conviction of the driver of the offending vehicle by criminal court cannot have any bearing on the disposal of the case by the Tribunal. Not only this, NIRMAL KANT 2014.12.24 14:12 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh FAO-1732-1993 5 it has also come on record in the evidence of AW4 ASI Rupinder Kumar that during investigation, he recorded statement of Gurdev Singh to the effect that driver of the offending vehicle had confessed before him that he had caused the accident under reference. In this view of the situation, findings of the Tribunal on issue No.1 cannot be allowed to sustain.
In view of the above while upsetting findings on issue No.1 and deciding this issue in favour of the appellant, I remit the matter back to the learned Tribunal with a direction to assess the amount of compensation payable to the appellant and to dispose of the matter afresh after hearing the appearing parties. As the matter has already been inordinately delayed, it is hoped and expected that the needful shall be done as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of appearance of the parties before the Tribunal.
Parties, through their counsel are directed to put in appearance before the Tribunal at 10 A.M. on 19.1.2015.
December 19, 2014 (MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN)
nk JUDGE
NIRMAL KANT
2014.12.24 14:12
I am the author of this
document
high court chandigarh