Dismissed

Ravi Parkash and Others v. Hazari Lal and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2012FAO/436/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a claim for compensation alleging injuries from a scooter accident. The High Court upheld the Tribunal, finding the claimants failed to prove the accident occurred without an FIR or medical evidence linking injuries to the vehicle. Key witnesses were deemed unreliable or absent.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal's award dismissing the claim petition stands affirmed.

Ravi Parkash and Others Vs Hazari Lal and… — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No. 436 of 1993 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO No. 436 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision : 2.2.2012

¶4

Ravi Parkash minor through Manohar Lal, father and others

¶5

................Appellants vs.

¶6

Hazari Lal and another

¶7

.................Respondents

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri

¶9

Present: Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate for the appellants

¶10

Sh. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.2- Insurance company.

¶11

K.C. Puri, J.

¶12

The claimants have directed the present appeal against the award dated 10.4.1992 passed by Sh. P.L. Goyal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa, vide which the claim petition preferred by Ravi Parkash minor in respect of his injuries under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was dismissed.

¶13

Briefly stated, the case of the claimants is that on 3.10.1990, at about 3.30 p.m. minor Ravi Parkash was sitting near his house at Barnala Road in D.C. Colony, Sirsa. Respondent No.1 Hazari Lal

¶14

FAO No. 436 of 1993 -2-

¶15

came there driving his scooter No. HR-24/4245 in a zig-zag manner and struck the same against minor Ravi Parkash resulting into multiple injuries on his head. He was taken to Sindhu Nursing Home at Sirsa and from there to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. From there he was shifted to Sapra Hospital, Hisar for his treatment. During this period operations had to be performed as the right hand side portion of the minor had paralytic attack. Even despite treatment, there was not much improvement and his right eye had reduced visibility and impaired the hearing of the claimant Ravi Parkash minor. Respondent No.2 - New India Assurance Company Limited is jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

¶16

Hazari Lal – respondent No.1 filed written statement denying the factum of accident empathetically. It is submitted that he is next door neighbour of the claimants and he went to the house of claimants to enquire the well being of Ravi Parkash, where he came to know that minor received injuries by climbing on a heap of bricks. There was a dispute regarding construction of wall and false petition has been preferred due to that dispute.

¶17

Respondent No.-2 the New India Assurance Company Limited in its written statement has taken the plea that Bimla Devi and Manohar Lal – parents of Ravi Parkash have no locus standi to file the claim petition in their individual capacity. The petition is barred by limitation. Hazari Lal was not holding a valid driving licence.

¶18

The claimants filed rejoinder/replication, denying the

¶19

FAO No. 436 of 1993 -3-

¶20

contents of the written reply and reiterating the stand taken in the claim petition.

¶21

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were

¶22

framed:-

¶23

Whether Ravi Parkash petitioner No.1 received injuries on his person in an accident caused by scooter No. HR24/4245 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner? OPP.

¶24

Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to bring the present claim petition? OPR

¶25

To what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP.

¶26

Relief.

¶27

Learned Tribunal, returned the finding on issue No. 1 against the claimants. Regarding issue No.2, it is held that only Ravi Parkash has locus standi to file the claim petition. Regarding issue No.3, the amount of compensation has been assessed as Rs.45,000/- but since the claimants have failed to prove the factum of accident, so the said issue was decided accordingly and ultimately, the claim petition was dismissed.

¶28

Feeling dissatisfied with the award dated 10.4.1992, passed by the Tribunal, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

¶29

Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, learned counsel for the appellantclaimants has submitted that finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 is wrong on the face of it. Mere registration of FIR is not the sole

¶30

FAO No. 436 of 1993 -4-

¶31

criteria to prove the factum of accident. To prove the factum of accident, Manohar Lal has appeared as PW-1 and corroborated the story of the claimants. PW-2 Tulsa Ram, eye witness of the occurrence has also supported the factum of occurrence. The stand taken by the respondent is that construction work was going on in the house of claimants and claimant Ravi Parkash received injury by fall from the heap of bricks. It is submitted that there was no construction activities in the house of the claimants. So, the stand taken by the respondent is wrong. The finding on issue No.1 are required to be set aside.

¶32

Counsel for the respondent-Insurance company has supported the award of the Tribunal.

¶33

The crucial issue for determination in the present case is whether the claimant Ravi Parkash received injuries in a motor vehicular accident. The man may tell lie, but the circumstances not. Admittedly, no FIR or DDR in respect of the occurrence in question has been recorded. The reliance of the claimants is on the testimony of Manohar Lal, father of Ravi Parkash minor and also on the statement of Tulsa Ram another alleged eye witness. Learned Tribunal after appreciating the whole evidence, reached to the conclusion that claimants have failed to prove that Ravi Parkash has received injuries in a motor vehicular accident i.e. by use of offending scooter by respondent No.1. Non-recording of FIR is material on the facts of the present case.

¶34

The second aspect is that in the medical record it is nowhere

¶35

FAO No. 436 of 1993 -5-

¶36

mentioned that Ravi Parkash received injuries due to motor vehicular accident. Manohar Lal, one of the claimants, while making statement, has stated that he know the importance of lodging the FIR. In case the FIR was not lodged at the instance of claimants, in that case, he could have filed criminal complaint in the Court of law, but no such complaint was filed. The claimants examined PW-4 Dr. Amar Singh Sidhu, who has stated that on 3.10.1990, Ravi Parkash was brought with head injury and fracture left temporal parietal bone, but he has not stated that injury was sustained by Ravi Parkash in a motor vehicular accident. The claimants, thereafter examined PW-5 Dr. Om Parkash. He also, in the cross examination has stated that in the history of patient there is no mentioning of the fact that injured received injuries in a motor vehicular accident. Manohar Lal being father of the minor is naturally interested in the success of the case. Manohar Lal during cross examination has stated that in the application he has not mentioned that he was present at the time of occurrence. His presence at the time of receiving injuries by Ravi Parkash has been held to be doubtful by the Tribunal and that finding cannot be said to be wrong. Even according to the testimony of PW-2 Tulsa Ram, at the time of accident, Manohar Lal and his wife were inside the house. So, Manohar Lal is not the witness of the occurrence even according to the evidence led by the claimant themselves. Tulsa Ram has stated that his house is at a distance of 400-450 sq. yards in a different street. He has further stated that it may be one half kilometer from the place of accident. In the cross examination, this

¶37

FAO No. 436 of 1993 -6-

¶38

witness has further stated that he did not know the name of person who had also seen the accident. That man had not come from the house of Manohar Lal. In the cross examination, he has stated that he has not informed the police regarding the occurrence. Hazari Lal has categorically stated that there was a dispute regarding common wall between Manohar Lal and him. So, it seems that Manohar Lal has lodged false claim and Tulsa Ram has been used as a false witness. His testimony has been rightly discarded by the Tribunal.

¶39

So, in view of the above discussion, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 stands affirmed.

¶40

Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.

¶41

( K.C. Puri ) 2.2.2012 Judge chugh

Ravi Parkash and Others v. Hazari Lal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Parkash and Others v. Hazari Lal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijender and Others Vs Sajjan and Others

Satpal Singh Malhotra Vs Gulshan Kumar

Satpal Singh Malhotra Vs Gulshan Kumar

Bir Singh S/O Shri Nanga Vs Bir Singh S/O Bhule and Ors.

(O&M) N I a C. Ltd. Vs Harvinder Singh Jaggi etc.

(O&M)State of Punjab etc. Vs Rano Devi and Ors.