Union of India appealed against an award of Rs. 3.4 lakhs for death caused in a motor vehicle accident. The High Court rejected the challenge to the Tribunal's finding of negligence against the bus driver, dismissing the appeal.
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.
FAO No. 44 of 2010 [ 1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 44 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.3.2010
Union of India
.. Appellant
v.
Gurpal Singh and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate for appellant.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Owner of the vehicle involved in the accident in question is in appeal against the award dated 16.7.2009, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby respondent No.1-claimant was awarded compensation of Rs. 3,40,000/- on account of the death of his son.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 23.7.2008, Jarnail Singh (deceased) and his friend Amarjit Singh were going on a motor cycle. Jarnail Singh was driving the motor cycle. When they reached near village Patara, a mini bus bearing No. TO-4P016048-H, being driven by its driver rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and collided against the motor cycle, due to which Jarnail Singh fell down and received injuries. Ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that challenge to the award in the present case is sought to be made on the ground of negligence. It was submitted that from the material on record, it is established that it was the driver of the motor cycle, who was negligent. The vehicle being driven by respondent No. 4 was a bus, in which patients are carried from the hospital to the Cantonment. It cannot be assumed that the same could be driven in rash and negligent manner. The site plan on record clearly established the fact that it was the motor cyclist, who had hit the bus while going on the wrong side. Even if it is opined that it was not the driver of the motor cycle, who was 100% negligent, still it is a case of contributory negligence.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The fact that driver of the bus was negligent has
FAO No. 44 of 2010 [ 2]
been proved on record by the claimant by way of pleadings as well as the oral evidence. The statement of the claimant in the present case was corroborated by eye-witness as well. Learned counsel for the appellant did not refer to any evidence, which could put a dent on the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding negligence. Mere site plan will not show the exact point where the accident took place, as after the accident the vehicles normally move here and there and may fall in such a direction which could lead to different conclusion than the manner in which the accident takes place.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
12.3.2010 mk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the findings of negligence against the bus driver recorded by the Tribunal are liable to be disturbed on appeal.
Union of India
Gurpal Singh
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
