In the first appeal filed by motor accident claimants against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award, the High Court rejected the appellants' challenge regarding the driver's alleged intoxication and affirmed the Tribunal's finding of equal negligence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
FAO No.4298 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.4298 of 2008 Date of Decision:01.07.2009
Krishan Kumar & anr.
....appellants
Versus
Banto Devi & Ors.
.....respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr.Brijender Kaushik,Advocate for the appellants
RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.
Appellants who are driver and owner of tractor No.HR-03A9605 have filed the present appeal challenging the impugned Award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar in MACT Case No.120 of 2006.
As per the averments made in the claim petition, on 05.12.2005 one Banarsi Dass(deceased) along with others was returning to Yamuna Nagar in a vehicle(Qualis) bearing registration No.PB-10AM5675 which was being driven by respondent No.6 and when the said Qualis reached near Yamuna Gases, Ambala Road, Jagadhri, appellant No.1 came driving tractor trolley bearing registration No.HR-03A-9605 in a rash and negligent manner and when respondent No.6 was in the process of over taking the said tractor trolley, appellant No.1 turned his tractor trolley towards his right side resulting into the accident and the Qualis struck with the wooden rafters which were loaded in the trolley and were hanging out on the rear side of the aforesaid tractor trolley and due to this impact the deceased and other persons received injuries and later on Banarsi Dass
FAO No.4298 of 2008
2
succumbed to the injuries on his way to the hospital. A criminal case was also registered against appellants on the statement of respondent No.6.
Respondent Nos.1 to 5 who are legal representatives of deceased Banarsi Dass claimed compensation alleging that both the drivers of the tractor trolley and Qualis were rash and negligent at the time of accident.
The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence found that accident between the tractor trolley and the Qualis had taken place when the Qualis was over taking the tractor trolley and the tractor trolley suddenly turned towards right hand side by appellant No.1 and it was held that appellant No.1 as well as respondent No.6 were proved to be rash and negligent, while driving their respective vehicles. Thus keeping in view the aforesaid finding appellant as well as respondent No.6 were held equally negligent for causing the accident and it was held that appellants shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of 50 per cent of the amount of compensation of the total amount of Rs.1,67,000/- granted to the claimants on account of death of Banarsi Dass in the accident.
Challenging the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that no liability can be fastened upon the appellants as it was proved on record that it was the driver of Qualis No. PB-10AM-5675 who was responsible for causing the accident and there is ample evidence on record to prove the same and thus the impugned Award is liable to be set aside to that extent and the appellants are entitled to be absolved from any liability.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned Award. In support of his appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that respondent No.6 was admittedly returning after attending a marriage and was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident or had not properly slept and thus was not in a position to control
3
FAO No.4298 of 2008
his vehicle and further the Qualis had struck in the rear portion of the tractor trolley and therefore no fault can be found with the driving of appellant No.1 and they are entitled to be absolved from their liability.
The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has recorded a finding of fact that there is no evidence on the file that respondent No.6 was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident or he had not properly slept and was not in a position to control his vehicle.
The accident with the tractor trolley is not disputed. Respondent No.6 while appearing in the witness box as RW3 had categorically stated that while over taking the tractor trolley he blew the horn and the driver of the tractor trolley all of a sudden took turn towards his right side and the wooden rafters struck in the front screen of his Qualis and hit the head of Banarsi Dass. The testimony of respondent No.6 could not be shattered in the cross-examination of the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants was not able to show that while recording a finding of fact the Tribunal has ignored any material evidence on record.
Thus, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned Award.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
01.07.2009
neenu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's finding that the appellants were equally negligent in causing the accident requires interference.
Whether sufficient evidence exists to show the driver of the other vehicle was under the influence of liquor or fatigue.
Krishan Kumar & anr.
Banto Devi & Ors.
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
