Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhi Ram vs Sushil Kumar & Others on 30 May, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO No.5527 of 2011 -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.5527of 2011
In MACT Case No.96 of 2009
Date of decision: 30.5.2012
Lakhi Ram ...Appellant
Versus
Sushil Kumar & others .....Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. S.S. Momi, Advocate,
for the appellant.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)
The claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned award dated 7.4.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition bearing No.96 of 2009 preferrred by the appellant, who is the father, mother and brother of the deceased on account of death of Gurmeet Singh in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 6.10.2009.
Brief facts of the case are that on 6.10.2009 the deceased Gurmeet Singh was going from Pipli side on his bicycle. When he reached near Mayur Dhaba, Ladwa, motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-07K-9591 being driven by Sushil Kumar in a rash and negligent manner struck into the bicycle of deceased. Consequently the deceased fell down on the road and received fatal and grivous injuries. Thereafter, the deceased was removed FAO No.5527 of 2011 -2 - to hospital from where he was referred to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra, where he succumbed to his injuries.
Claimants who are parents and brother of the deceased preferred claim petition No.96 of 2009 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Kurukshetra on account of death of Gurmeet Singh in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 6.10.2009. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition bearing No.96 of 2009.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal erred in not granting compensation to the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant has spent Rs.50,000/- on treatment, transport and last rites of deceased. He further contends that the Tribunal has not considered the testimony of eye-witness Raj Kumar and has wrongly decided the issue No.1. in favour of the respondent. He contends that deceased Gurmeet Singh died due to the rash and negligent driving of Sushil Kumar. Learned counsel further refers to Para No.10 of the judgment in case Gurdeep Kaur Vs. Tarsem Singh 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 774 which is reproduced as under:-
......." 10. The Counsel for the appellants, vehemently contended that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that Tarsem Singh, driver of the Bus, was neither rash nor negligent, in driving the Bus, at the relevant time, resulting into accident and FAO No.5527 of 2011 -3 - leading to the death of Sukhdev Singh, one of the occupants of the tractor-trolley. He further contended that sufficient substantive evidence was led by the claimants, to prove that Tarsem Singh- driver of the Bus, was rash or negligent, in driving the same, as a result whereof, the accident took place leading to the death of Sukhdev Singh, one of the occupants of the trolley attached to the tractor, but the same was ignored by the Tribunal, without any sound reason. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, in this regard, appears to be correct, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. The principle of law, laid down in N.K.V. Bros. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M. Karumal Ammal and others, 1980 ACJ 435 (Supreme Court) was to the effect that the law is well settled that in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, the evidence should not be scrutinized, in the manner, as is done in a civil or in a criminal case. The proceedings, before the Tribunal, are of the nature of summary enquiry, whereas, in a criminal case, the rule is of proof beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the rule is preponderance of probabilities. If, there is some evidence before the Claims Tribunal to prove a fact, no nicety, doubt or suspicion should weigh with it, in deciding a Motor FAO No.5527 of 2011 -4 - Accident Claims case. In United India Insurance Company Ltd., Ludhiana v. Kamla Rani and others, 1997(4) RCR (Civil) 539, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that the Tribunals established, under the Motor Vehicles Act, are not governed by the rules of procedure envisaged by the Civil Procedure Code. The Tribunals are required to evolve their own procedure to meet the ends of justice, based on the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. The evidence led, in these cases is required to be scrutinized, in view of the principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid authorities.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
From the perusal of the record it emerges, that the accident in question took place on 6.10.2009 whereas, the FIR has been lodged on 8.10.2012. Raj Kumar, who is stated to be an eye-witness, on whose statement the FIR was recorded was not named in the ruqqa. Moreover, Raj Kumar, when appeared as PW-2 in criminal case has admitted that police had reached at the place of accident but he did not know whether any statement was recorded by the police or not. An eye-witness of the accident, Raj Kumar had been changing his stand time and again. The testimony of this eye-witness cannot be relied upon. The judgment of criminal Court shows that both the star FAO No.5527 of 2011 -5 - witnesses resiled from their earlier version before the place. Consequently Sushil Kumar driver was acquitted in the criminal case on 7.12.2010. Certified copy of judgment of criminal Court has been placed on the file of this Court. The learned Tribunal has rightly decided issue No.1 against the petitioners. No other cogent evidence has been produced on record by the appellant. Therefore, this Court feels that in the absence of any cogent evidence the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition preferred by the claimant-appellant.
Keeping in view the above, this Court feels that there is no scope of interference in the impugned award passed by the leaned Tribunal dismissing the claim petition. The present appeal stands dismissed having been failed on merit.
30.5.2012 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN) aarti JUDGE