Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kiran Abbott vs State Of Haryana on 14 October, 2014
Author: Hari Pal Verma
Bench: Hari Pal Verma
FAO No. 1257 of 1992 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 1257 of 1992 (O&M)
DECIDED ON : October 14, 2014
Mrs. Kiran Abbott and others
..........Appellants
VERSUS
The State of Haryana and others
........Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper may be allowed to see
judgement?
2. To be referred to reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT:- Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Ajay Gupta, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate with
Mr. Rahul Pathania, Advocate for the Insurance Company.
HARI PAL VERMA, J. (ORAL)
This is the claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, while passing the award dated 22.01.1992, has framed the following issues:
"1. Whether Brij Bhusan died because of the rash and negligent driving of bus No. HR-01-3934 by respondent Bishan Singh? OPP.
2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimants are entitled and from whom? OPP.
3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
4. Relief."
The learned Tribunal has returned findings on issue No.1 and concluded that for want of evidence, the issue is decided against the claimants. However, while deciding issue No.2, the Tribunal awarded a sum of ` 25,000/- ANJAL GUPTA as compensation on account of no fault liability. 2014.10.27 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document high court chandigarh FAO No. 1257 of 1992 (O&M) 2
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
It is found that claimant Kiran Abbott and Inspector Nanak Chand were examined by the claimants/appellants. However, they having failed to conclude their evidence, despite granting final opportunity, their evidence was closed on 26.09.1991. Even the respondent also failed to produce any evidence except copy of the Insurance Policy.
Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants contended that the claimants have deposited the diet money and necessary charges for summoning the witnesses as mentioned in Para No. 4 of the grounds of appeal. However, those witnesses did not turn up and the Tribunal passed the impugned award.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case particularly when the diet money and the process fee for summoning the witnesses have been deposited, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to examine those witnesses and to pass a detailed award. Moreover, depositing of diet money and necessary charges for summoning the witnesses, has not been disputed by the opposite counsel as well.
With regard to the quantum of compensation, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned award and further direct the Tribunal to pass fresh order on the basis of evidence on record including additional evidence which the claimants failed to adduce before the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the above said terms.
(HARI PAL VERMA) JUDGE October 14, 2014 Anjal ANJAL GUPTA 2014.10.27 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document high court chandigarh