Dismissed

Savitri v. Meenu and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Dec 2019FAO/8678/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the dismissal of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The High Court held that the appellant failed to prove the factum of the accident as she did not appear as a witness in the associated criminal case, despite being an alleged eyewitness, and no medical record was produced.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 23.08.2017 is upheld.

Savitri Vs Meenu and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

FAO No. 8678 of 2017 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 04. 12. 2019

Smt . Savi t r i

…. . Appel l ant

ver sus

Meenu and ot her s

. . . . . Respondent s

¶8

CORAM: - HON' BLE MRS. JUSTI CE ALKA SARI N

¶9

Pr esent : Mr . Ashi sh Gupt a, Advocat e f or t he appel l ant

¶10

ALKA SARI N, J. :

¶11

The pr esent appeal has been f i l ed by t he cl ai mant agai nst t he awar d dat ed 23. 08. 2017 passed by Mot or Acci dent Cl ai ms Tr i bunal , Mewat , wher eby t he cl ai m pet i t i on f i l ed by her under sect i on 166 of t he Mot or Vehi cl es Act , 1988 ( her ei naf t er t o be r ef er r ed t o as “ t he MACT Act ” ) f or gr ant of compensat i on t o t he t une of Rs. 5 l akhs on account of t he i nj ur i es sust ai ned by her i n a r oad acci dent has been di smi ssed.

¶12

The case, as set up i n t he cl ai m pet i t i on, was t hat on 30. 11. 2014 at about 8. 30 A. M. , t he appel l ant was goi ng t o Vi l l age Kot , Tehsi l Hat hi n, Di st r i ct Pal wal , f r om vi l l age Meol i i n a t empo ( t hr ee- wheel er ) and when she r eached near SHKM- GMC Nal har t ur n, Nuh, t he of f endi ng Pi ck- up bear i ng t empor ar y r egi st r at i on No. HR- 99TRC- 8117, whi ch was bei ng dr i ven by r espondent No. 1 i n a r ash and negl i gent manner , came f r om Nuh si de and di r ect l y hi t t he t empo t he appel l ant was t r avel l i ng i n. The appel l ant cl ai med t hat she was admi t t ed t o Nal har Hospi t al by her son Ani l , who was wi t h her , and t hat

¶13

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.11 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

FAO- 8678- 2017

¶15

- 2 -

¶16

FI R No. 812 dat ed 03. 12. 2014 was al so r egi st er ed at Pol i ce St at i on Nuh under sect i ons 279 and 337 I PC.

¶17

The cl ai m pet i t i on was cont est ed by t he r espondent s, i nt er al i a , on t he f act um of t he acci dent as t her e was a del ay i n l odgi ng t he FI R. The acci dent t ook pl ace on 30. 11. 2014, wher eas, t he FI R was r egi st er ed on 03. 12. 2014. No r ej oi nder was f i l ed. The Tr i bunal r et ur ned t he f i ndi ng on i ssue No. 1 hol di ng t hat t he pet i t i on had been f i l ed by t he cl ai mant i n conni vance wi t h r espondent Nos. 1 and 2 t o cl ai m compensat i on f r om t he I nsur ance Company. I t was f ur t her hel d t hat t he cl ai mant has f ai l ed t o pr ove t he acci dent as bei ng caused by r espondent No. 1 by r ash and negl i gent dr i vi ng.

¶18

I have hear d l ear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant and per used t he paper - book of t he case.

¶19

Lear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant ar gued t hat t he acci dent st ood pr oved by t he t est i mony of PW- 5 Ani l , who was an eye- wi t ness t o t he acci dent . However , l ear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant was unabl e t o gi ve any cogent expl anat i on f or t he del ay i n l odgi ng t he FI R. Lear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant , when conf r ont ed wi t h t he f act t hat appel l ant had f ai l ed t o st ep i nt o t he wi t ness box t o depose f or t he pr osecut i on i n t he cr i mi nal case, he coul d not deny t hat t he appel l ant had, i n f act , f ai l ed t o appear bef or e t he t r i al Cour t i n cr i mi nal case ar i si ng out of FI R No. 812 dat ed 03. 12. 2014. I t has al so been not i ced by t he Tr i bunal t hat t he cl ai mant f ai l ed t o appear bef or e t he t r i al Cour t t o depose i n t he t r i al and bai l abl e war r ant s wer e i ssued. Despi t e ser vi ce

¶20

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.11 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

FAO- 8678- 2017

¶22

- 3 -

¶23

of summons upon her , she di d not appear t o depose agai nst t he accused i n t he cr i mi nal mat t er .

¶24

Havi ng gone t hr ough t he awar d passed by t he Tr i bunal and af t er hear i ng t he l ear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant , I am of t he vi ew t hat t he pr esent appeal must f ai l . The appel l ant has, i n f act , not been abl e t o pr ove t he f act um of t he acci dent by l eadi ng any cogent evi dence. The onl y evi dence l ed by her i s t he or al t est i mony of her son Ani l , PW- 5, who, she cl ai med, was an eye- wi t ness t o t he sai d acci dent . No medi cal r ecor d has been pr oduced ei t her by t he appel l ant . I t has al so come on t he r ecor d t hat at t he t i me of ar r i val of Savi t r i ( t he appel l ant her ei n) , at t he Gover nment Medi cal Col l ege, Nal har , her son Ani l had r ef used f or r ecor di ng of a medi co- l egal r epor t at t he f i r st i nst ance and no cogent r eason f or t he same was f or t hcomi ng.

¶25

I n vi ew of t he f act s st at ed above, I do not f i nd any mer i t i n t hi s appeal . Hence, t he same st ands di smi ssed.

¶26

( ALKA SARI N) JUDGE

¶27

1. 2019 par kash

¶28

NOTE: Whet her speaki ng/ non- speaki ng: Speaki ng Whet her r epor t abl e: YES/ NO

¶29

PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.11 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Savitri v. Meenu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri v. Meenu and Ors.

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

Shri Sanatan Dharam Education Society & Anr. Vs Anil Goyal & Ors.

Satvinder Singh Vs Gurinder Kaur

Satvinder Singh Vs Gurinder Kaur

Gurcharan Kaur Vs Nirvair Singh Chakal & Ors.

M/S Sandeep Rice Mills Vs Food Corporation of India

Tokh Ram and Ors. Vs Zile Singh Since Deceased through Lrs and Ors.