Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kusum Lata And Others vs Satbir And Others on 21 May, 2010
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
FAO No. 4047 of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 4047 of 2006
Date of decision 21.5. 2010.
Kusum Lata and others
...... Appellants.
versus
Satbir and others.
...... Respondents.
Present : Mr. R.S.Sangwan, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Paul S.Saini, Advocate for the respondents No.3. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
K.C.PURI. J.
The instant appeal has been directed by Kusum Lata and others against the Award dated 14.6.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul vide which the claim petition preferred by the claimants was dismissed.
Factual matrix comprising the claim petition shorn of unnecessary details on 12.1.2005 about 6.30 P.M. Surender Kumar (since deceased) was going from Kanina towards Mahendergarh on foot FAO No. 4047 of 2006 2 on the Kacha berma of the road. When he reached near a liquor vend situated on Kanina - Mahendergarh road, in the meanwhile from the back side i.e. from the side of Kanina, a tempo bearing registration No. HR-34/8010 driven by respondent No.1 at a very fast and rash speed and in a negligent manner, came and hit the deceased straight as a result of which, Surender Kumar (since deceased) received injuries on his various parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, deceased was taken to Civil Hospital, Kanina where he had died due to injuries sustained in the aforesaid accident. The accident was caused due to negligence as also rash fast driving by respondent No.1.
Respondents No. 1 and 2 have contested the petition by filing a joint written statement. The alleged accident was denied to have been caused by respondent No.1 by driving the offending tempo negligently or at a rash fast speed. The fact of causing death of Surender Kumar due to the accident was also denied. It is claimed that a false case was registered against respondent No.1 by the claimants in collision with the police. Dismissal of the petition was sought.
Respondent No.3 i.e. the New India Assurance company has also contested the petition tooth and nail. Setting up a case of total denial, it is claimed that no accident had taken place with the offending tempo in the manner alleged by the claimant and that the story set up by the claimant was false and concocted. It is further claimed that the driver of the offending vehicle was not in possession of a valid driving licence. It is further alleged that the compensation sought is without any legal basis, excessive and exaggerated one. Prayer for dismissal of FAO No. 4047 of 2006 3 the petition was made.
No replication was filed by the claimants. Consequently, on these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled for adjudication vide order dated 1.8.2005:-
1. Whether death of Surender Kumar caused in a vehicular accident of 12.1.2005 within the area of Kanina- Mahendergarh Road, Kanina on account of rash and negligent driving of tempo No. HR-34/8010 being driven by respondent no.1? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3. Whether respondent No.3 is not liable to make payment of the amount of compensation on the grounds alleged in the preliminary objections of its written statement? OPR-3
4. Relief.
The parties have led their respective evidence on the aforesaid issue. The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the claim petition.
Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid award, the claimants-appellants have preferred the instant appeal before this Court for grant of compensation amount.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
FAO No. 4047 of 2006 4
The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that FIR regarding the occurrence has been recorded at the instance of Ashok Kumar, brother of the deceased. Mere fact that name of driver and number of vehicle has not been mentioned in the FIR does not make it a suspicious document. The police has investigated the case and found that accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Satbir Singh. It is a welfare Legislation and strict proof is not required. The recording of the FIR is itself prove the involvement of the vehicle in question in the accident. Ashok Kumar PW-2 has supported the case of the claimant on all material particulars. ASI Daya Ram (PW-6) also proved the fact that accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Satbir Singh. So, in these circumstances the findings of the Tribunal on issue No.1 are wrong and are liable to be reversed.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has supported the judgment of the Tribunal.
The claimant examined PW-1 Kusum Lata widow of deceased and she in her cross-examination has stated that she has not witnessed the accident. The claimant examined PW-2, real brother of the deceased, although in the affidavit has stated that he reached at the spot when he heard the noise. This witness is author of the FIR. This witness has not given the number of the tempo nor name of the driver in the FIR as well as while appearing in the Court. The other eye- witness examined by the complainant is Deeraj Kumar. This witness has given the number of the tempo and name of the driver but the FAO No. 4047 of 2006 5 presence of this witness has not been mentioned in the FIR. PW-6 Daya Ram has stated that according to the investigation Satbir Singh was driving the tempo bearing registration No. HR-34/8010 and basis of his investigation is statements of PW Ashok Kumar and PW Deeraj Kumar. Name of these witnesses do not find place in the FIR. So, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that these are the made up witnesses and in fact the claimants have failed to prove that the accident has taken place with the offending vehicle. No doubt, Motor Vehicle Act is a welfare Legislation but the minimum expectation of the Court from the claimants is that they should prove the fact that offending vehicle is involved in the accident and in proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act that the claimant has also to prove that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. So, the findings of the Tribunal to the effect that the claimants have failed to prove that accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending tempo as well as that offending vehicle is not involved in the accident do not call for any interference.
In view of the above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C.PURI )
JUDGE
May 21st, 2010
sv