Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kaur And Ors. vs Raj Kumar And Ors. on 1 September, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1993)105PLR709
JUDGMENT Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala dated November 30, 1984 vide which the claim petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimants-appellants had been dismissed.
2. In the instant case the issue for consideration was whether the death of Bhajan Singh deceased was the result of the accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent diving of truck No. PBV No. 1479 by Sohan Singh, respondent. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) decided this issue against the claimants by holding that the claimants had not been able to establish that it was respondent No. 2 who caused the accident or that it was the truck belonging to respondent No. 1 which was involved in the accident.
3. The challenge to the award is that the Tribunal should have accepted the version of Naresh Kumar (PW-6). Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the findings of the Tribunal are contrary to the evidence on record and as such Liable to be set aside.
4. After scanning the evidence on record and on consideration of the matter, I am of the view that there is no merit in the submissions of the counsel for the appellants.
5. From the perusal of the FIR, it will be seen that there is no mention about the name of the driver as well as number of the offending vehicle. The claimants-appellants have not been able to adduce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in the accident, nor the eye witness account supported the version of the claimants. It is stated in the claim petition that the vehicle which had caused the accident, was identified to be PBV 1479. It is further stated therein that the driver of the vehicle taking advantage of darkness, ran away and could not be identified. It is also averred that the applicant immediately rushed to the Police Station and got FIR lodged with the Police. It is revealed from the testimony of Mohinder Singh that Prem Kumar, owner of Tea-shop, had raised alarm at the time of occurrence that Bhajan Singh had been run over by the truck and thereafter he (Mohinder Singh) rushed to the spot. Prem Kumar while appearing as RW-2 did not corroborate the version of Mohinder Singh. This witness denied any accident having taken place on 31.3.1983 in his presence.
6. The name of Naresh Kumar (PW-6), who happened to be a resident of Patiala, does not find mention either in the claim petition or in the statement of claimant Mohinder Singh. Even his name does not find place in FIR. Investigating Officer Shamsher Singh had stated that none of the persons whose statements were recorded by him at the spot, disclosed the name of the driver of the offending vehicle. This witness had clearly stated that he was not present at the spot and had not seen the alleged accident. This witness had also stated that Mohinder Singh in his statement before him neither disclosed the name of the driver of offending truck nor its number. Raj Kumar, who is the owner of the truck, while appearing as RW-4 stated that on the alleged date of accident, his vehicle remained stationed in Truck Union, Nabha and the same was to be plied as per turn to be allotted by the Union. The testimony of this witness finds corroboration from the statement of Sukhdep Singh Clerk of the Truck Union, who while appearing as RW-6 had stated that on 31.3.1983 truck No. PBV 1479 remained stationed in the Union and the same was not sent anywhere. Naresh Kumar PW had simply stated that he was present at tea shop, but he did not depose that he had seen the accident.
7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the truck in question was not involved in the alleged accident.
8. Consequently this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.