Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Sunita And Another on 27 January, 2009
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
FAO.No.410 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
C.M.No.1464-CII of 2009 and
FAO.No.410 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of order : 27.1.2009
State of Haryana and another
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sunita and another
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl.A.G, Haryana for the appellants. JASWANT SINGH,J(ORAL) C.M.No.1464-CII of 2009
This is an application for condonation of 25 days' delay in filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 25 days' in filing the appeal is condoned. FAO No.410 of 2009
Present appeal has been filed by the State and the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak challenging the award dated 22.8.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak whereby a claim petition filed by respondent Sunita, a 15 years minor daughter of Pala Ram has been allowed and a compensation of Rs.51,000/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum on the awarded amount from the date of institution of the petition till its realization has been awarded by holding the appellants liable jointly and severally, with costs of the petition.
Claimant-respondent, minor Sunita, on 28.9.2005, was going to her house after giving tea to her father at 6.15 a.m., who was serving as FAO.No.410 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Peon in White House and when she reached Narain Complex at Rohtak, a motor cycle bearing No.HR-12E-4505, which was being driven by Constable Bhagwan Singh rashly and negligently and at a high speed, came from Chhotu Ram Park and struck her from behind due to which she fell down at a distance of four meters and sustained injuries. Her father and some people gathered there and caught hold of the motorcyclist, however, the Constable Bhagwan Singh fled from the spot. Sunita was shifted to PGI, Rohtak where she remained admitted for 20 days and ultimately, she was found to have suffered 3% permanent disability.
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the case of the appellants before the Tribunal was that the stated motor-cycle i.e. HR-12E-4505 was not involved in the accident as Constable Bhagwan Singh had been driving another motor-cycle No.HR-05-Q-2705 since the alleged motor-cycle was out of order on that particular date, and learned Tribunal has wrongly ignored this aspect.
Learned Tribunal has discussed this issue in paras No.12 to 15 of its award. It is apparent from the records that appellants-respondents No.2 & 3 i.e. State through Collector and Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, in their written statement had admitted that the motor-cycle No. HR-12E- 4505 was allotted to Constable Bhagwan Singh but alleged that the same had gone out of order on 28.9.2005 and at the time of accident caused by him, he was allotted motor cycle No.HR-05-Q-2705. No cogent evidence has been led to show as to by what time, the said motor-cycle had gone out of order and as to by what time, the other motor-cycle No. HR-05-Q-2705 had been given to Constable Bhagwan Singh. In the FIR Ex.P.9, the involvement of the motor-cycle No. HR-12E-4505 has been clearly stated. FAO.No.410 of 2009 (O&M) 3 On the basis of the evidence on record, the allotment of subsequent motor- cycle i.e. HR-05-Q-2705 has not been accepted. It is not disputed that Constable Bhagwan Singh is facing trial in an FIR under Sections 279/337/338 IPC, relating to the accident in question.
There is absolutely no reason available with the claimants to falsely implicate Constable Bhagwan Singh or for stating the number of the motor cycle as HR-12E-4505, being driven by him, as stated in the FIR. It also does not stand to reason as to how the claimants knew about the particulars of the motor cycle HR-12E-4505, being allotted to Constable Bhagwan Singh, if he was allegedly driving the other motor cycle No.HR- 05-Q-2705. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted.
The compensation awarded, in view of the injuries sustained and the number of days for which respondent Sunita remained admitted in hospital, seems to be just and equitable.
In view of the above,this Court finds no ground to interfere with the award dated 22.8.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak.
Dismissed.
January 27, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE