This is an appeal by claimant against dismissal of compensation claim by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The single judge affirmed the tribunal's finding that the claimant failed to prove rash and negligent driving.
The appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal's award dated 21.10.2010 was affirmed.
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. 3285 of 2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
F.A.O. No. 3285 of 2011 Date of decision:-02.07.2013
Rohit minor son of Amar Pal through his father Amar Pal
....... Appellant
Versus
Davender and others
........ Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Satyapal Khatri, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for Mr. Vikrant Hooda, Advocate for the respondents.
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
This is an appeal brought by the claimant against dismissal of his claim petition by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Sonepat (for short'the Tribunal) vide award dated 21.10.2010. Learned Tribunal has found the claimant to be unsuccessful in proving issue no.1 where the claimant was to
F.A. O. No. 3285 of 2011
-2-
prove that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor No. HR-16-D-3430 by Devender, respondent no.1.
The case of the claimant had been that the claimant alongwith his brother Mohit was coming from the fields on 10.01.2009 at about 1.30 PM and when they were at a distance of 2 or 3 acres from the village temple on village Juan road, a tractor bearing registration No. HR-16D-3430 alongwith trolley loaded with sugarcane came from their back side and the side of the trolley had hit the claimant, who fell down and wheel of the trolley had crossed over his right leg. He claimed to have received permanent disability as well as disfigurement and elaborate claim had sought for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation.
Respondents no.1 and 2 denied the accident to have been an outcome of rash and negligent driving of tractor No. HR-16D-3430 by respondent no.1.
The parties went to trial on various issues. Taking evidence of the parties, learned Tribunal has decided issue no.1 against the petitioner and consequently dismissed the claim petition vide the impugned award.
F.A. O. No. 3285 of 2011
-3-
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that case regarding this accident was registered against respondent no.1. According to him, respondent no.1 appearing as RW-1 has admitted that he has been facing trial regarding this accident. According to him, this admission is sufficient evidence to prove the issue regarding the accident being an outcome of rash and negligent driving of tractor by respondent no.1.
It is true that respondent no.1 appearing as RW-1 has admitted that he was facing trial regarding this accident. However, this is not an admission of the fact that the accident has been an outcome of rash and negligent driving of tractor no. HR16D-3430 by him. Respondent No.1 has moreover stated that a false case has been registered against him by the police and that no such accident was caused by him. He had also stated that vehicle No. HR-16D-3430 was falsely involved by the police in this accident.
No evidence worth the name apart from the above given admission of respondent No.1 has come on the record. Not even the investigating officer, who proceeded against respondent no.1 for causing this accident by his rash and negligent driving of tractor No.HR-16D-3430 has also been
F.A. O. No. 3285 of 2011
-4-
examined. The investigating Officer could tell as to which pieces of evidence he could collect which prima-facie pointed to respondent no.1 as the author of this accident. Mere admission of respondent no.1 that he is facing trial regarding this accident is no evidence to prove the issue which has been returned by learned Tribunal against the claimant. Consequently, I do not find any infirmity in the findings of learned Tribunal on issue no.1 and affirm the same.
In these circumstances, I find no merit in the appeal
and the same is dismissed.
02.07.2013 dinesh
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition by holding that the appellant failed to prove rash and negligent driving by the respondent.
Whether an admission by a witness that he is facing trial is sufficient evidence to establish that an accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of a vehicle.
Rohit minor son of Amar Pal through his father Amar Pal
Davender
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
