This appeal challenges a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a compensation claim for death due to lack of evidence. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that a written statement by the deceased's father, who was not a party to the suit, held no evidentiary value against the innocent respondents.
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.
F.A. O. No. 3078 of 2011(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 3078 of 2011 Date of decision:-02.07.2013
Parmjit Kaur
....... Appellant
Versus
Simranjit Singh and ors.
........ Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr.Arun Jindal, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Shamsher Kaur, Advocate for respondent no.3.
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
This is an appeal brought by Parmjit Kaur, the claimant, who sought compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of Gurdeep Singh alias Makhan, in a road side accident that took place on 10.09.2009. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short
F.A. O. No. 3078 of 2011(O&M)
-2-
'the Tribunal') vide award dated 17.01.2011 has returned findings on issue no.1 against the claimant for want of any evidence.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the eye witness of the accident was Hari Singh, who was arrayed as respondent no.4. According to him, he has been the father of the deceased Gurdeep Singh and father-in-law of the claimant. According to him, he has filed written statement in the case where he admitted having seen the accident and that the accident had occurred in the manner alleged by the claimant. According to him, he was proceeded against ex-parte thereafter and he could not be examined at the trial.
Learned counsel for respondent no.3, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no admissible evidence on the record to prove that the accident is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of truck No. HR-37-B/0336 by respondent no.1.
Admittedly Hari Singh, the only eye witness of the accident has not been examined by the claimant to prove her case. The question, therefore, would arise as to what value can be assigned to the written statement of respondent no.4 where
F.A. O. No. 3078 of 2011(O&M)
-3-
he admitted the accident to have occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of truck in question by respondent no.1.
In my opinion, the written statement is by a coclaimant, who was not joined by the claimant in filing the petition. His admission would not have any binding force for the other respondents. Had it been an admission on the part of the driver of the truck, it could have been said that it had some value against him, though not against the insurance company because the insurance company could still prove that he was colluding with the claimant. The admission of father of the deceased who was arrayed as proforma respondent, in the written statement carried no value. Hence, learned Tribunal has rightly returned the finding on issue no.1 against the claimant for want of any evidence. The said finding is not liable to interference in the appeal.
The appeal is, consequently, dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
02.07.2013 dinesh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in returning a finding against the claimant for want of evidence due to the unavailability of the sole eyewitness.
Whether the admission contained in the written statement of the deceased's father, who was not a joiner party to the suit, has any binding force on the respondents.
Parmjit Kaur
Simranjit Singh
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
