An appeal against dismissal of a claim petition for motor accident compensation. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the accident was not proved to be due to rash or negligent driving due to conflicting evidence and lack of vital facts.
The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit.
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. 4008 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO NO. 4008 of 2010 Date of order: 27.09.2011
Gurmeet Singh
..... Appellant
Versus
Shamsher Singh and others
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr. Sameer Sethi, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for respondentno.3.
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
This is an appeal brought by the claimant challenging the award dated 09.09.1999 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short 'the Tribunal') vide which the claim petition of the claimants for compensation on the death of Bengali Ram has been dismissed. The claim petition brought under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short the Act) seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is based on the following averments.
FAO NO. 4008 of 2010 2
On 17.12.1994 Bengali Ram left village Basiauan at about 6.30 AM on a bicycle. He was accompanied by Ravi Ram and was going to Pinjore. When they were ½ k.m. short of village Dhamala, a four wheeler bearing registration no.HP-12/2019, driven by Shamsher Singh, respondent no.1, came from their back side in a rash or negligent manner and had hit the bicycle of Bengali Ram, who was moving on his left side katcha portion of the road. Bengali Ram suffered injuries due to the accident. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Pinjore from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. There he died on account of the injuries sustained by him. Bengali Ram was 40 years old at the time of his death and was earning Rs.6000/- per month by working as a daily wager for loading and unloading building material.
Respondents no.2 and 3 resisted the claim. Respondent no.2 has denied the very factum of alleged accident. Respondent no.3 has added that respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and, therefore, no award could be made against it. Respondent no.1 had been proceeded against ex-parte by the Tribunal.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-
FAO NO. 4008 of 2010 3
Taking evidence of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, learned Tribunal found under issue no.1 that the accident is not proved to have occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the vehicle in question by respondent no.1. With this finding recorded on issue no.1, the claim petition was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the award aforesaid, the claimant has brought
this appeal.
I have heard Mr. Vivek Suri, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Mr. Sameer Sethi, learned counsel for respondent no.2, and Mr. R.C. Kapoor, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and have gone through the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the statement of Ravi Ram, which was supported by the entry in the daily diary was sufficient to prove that the accident was an outcome of rash or negligent driving of four wheeler bearing registration No. HP-12/2019 by its driver Shamsher Singh, respondent no.1. According to him, Ravi Ram had made a statement on oath in this regard and there was no
FAO NO. 4008 of 2010 4
reason to disbelieve him. He has further submitted that the number of the vehicle appears in the daily diary report and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue no.1 is liable to be reversed.
He has further submitted that even if the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue no.1 is not found to be wrong, still the appellant was entitled to compensation under 'No Fault Liability' clause.
Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has submitted that the manner in which the accident is claimed to have occurred in the daily diary entry and in the statement of Ravi Ram, PW-2 is conflicting and for this conflict, no accident was rightly found to have taken place. He has further submitted that Ravi Ram, appearing as PW-2 has failed to give the name of the driver or number of the offending vehicle in his statement, and, therefore, no compensation on 'No Fault Liability' could even be given. He has, thus, submitted that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition.
Learned Tribunal has re-produced the statement of Ravi Ram in para no.9 of the award. He had stated that he had seen the accident. As per his statement, Bengali Ram was going on bicycle to Pinjore and when he was ½ km short of bus stand of village Dhamala and was on katcha berm of the road, a truck came from the opposite side at a high speed. He has further stated that on account of the fault of the truck driver, the truck had hit Bengali Ram, who fell down on the ground and suffered injuries.
FAO NO. 4008 of 2010 5
In his statement, he could not give the name of the truck driver or the number of the vehicle involved in the accident. The statement of Ravi Ram was the only substantive evidence on record and in the absence of these facts, no liability could be fastened on the driver or owner of four wheeler No. HP 12-2019.
The DDR entry to which learned counsel for the appellant has made reference is to the effect that the four wheeler came from the back side of Bengali Ram and had hit the deceased. Ravi Ram, appearing as PW-2 has claimed the truck to have come from his opposite side. Besides being a major conflict between the version of DDR and the statement of Ravi Ram, the statement of Ravi Ram is silent about the material facts, which are required to prove that it was rash or negligent driving of the vehicle in question.
In these circumstances, learned Tribunal has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence on record and has rightly reached the conclusion that the accident is not proved to have been an outcome of rash or negligent driving of vehicle no. HP-12-2019. Therefore, the appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
27.09.2011 dinesh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in not accepting the witness statement and daily diary entry to find that the accident was caused by rash or negligent driving.
Whether compensation should be awarded under the 'No Fault Liability' clause despite conflict in evidence regarding the vehicle number.
Gurmeet Singh
Shamsher Singh and others
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
