Insurance company appealed an award granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal following a fatal road accident. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding based on cogent testimony of a police witness regarding the accident details.
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.
124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-3536-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.01.2022
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
…Appellant
Versus
BRAHAM CHAND AND ORS …Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present: Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, for the appellant. (Presence marked through Video Conference)
-.-
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Aggrieved with the award dated 05.04.2021 rendered by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for brevity, Tribunal), Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal.
VANDANA 2022.02.08 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
of impugned compensation is reproduced herein below:
“12. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that in the FIR Ex.P5, which was recorded on the statement of one EASI Jagdish Chander, the name of the offending driver as well as registration number has not been mentioned and there is nothing in the FIR to suggest that the death of Anand Kumar had occurred due to a road side accident. He further argued that PW-2 Krishan has deposed before this Tribunal that on the alleged date of accident, it was a cold and foggy night. Thus, it does not seem possible that he would have been in a position to note down the registration number of the offending vehicle.
13. However, these contentions of learned counsel are not tenable. In the FIR Ex.P5, it is mentioned that EASI Jagdish Chander was informed by some passerby that an unknown person is lying on the road in an injured condition. He reached at the spot and found said unknown person dead. One broken foot of the deceased was also found at some distance. Nothing adverse could be pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No.3 to doubt the genuineness of the version of the FIR, which was got registered by EASI Jagdish Chander while performing his duties as a responsible police officer.
14. Moreover, PW-2 Krishan was also joined by the police in the course of investigations of FIR No.02 dated 05.01.2019 under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC Police Station Bass and his statement Ex.R1 was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-2 Krishan was cross-examined at length by learned counsel for the respondents, however, nothing could be elicited to impeach his testimony.”
PW-2
Krishan Kumar son of Hari Chand, aged 35 years, R/o Village Singhwa Khas, Tehsil Bass, District Hisar.
Stated that I tender my affidavit of evidence Ex/ PW2/A, which may read my evidence.
XXX by respondent counsel
Today I have come to Court at the request of Braham Chand petitioner. The accident took place at N.H.9. It is correct that divider is available between the road. I have the hotel of Shyam Kanhiya. It is correct that on 4 and 5 January, 2019 was heavy cold day. Time was 12.30 a.m. morning. It is correct that heavy fog and darkness was on that day. Police recorded my statement on 06 January 2019. The copy of my statement is Ex/R-1. It is incorrect to suggest that no accident took place with car No. HR-01S-4975. I cannot tell how many persons were travelling in offending car and did
VANDANA 2022.02.08 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
not see the driver of the car. It is correct that I disclose before the petitioners after two days of the accident. I was intimated on police Naka. It is incorrect to suggest that I was not present at the time of accident. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely being co-villagers of petitioners.
Same has no bearing on the findings rendered by the Tribunal. Delay, if any, was on the part of the Investigating Officer and the same cannot be the ground to doubt the statement made by the aforesaid witness. There is no room for interference by
this Court.
6. Dismissed.
(ARUN MONGA) JUDGE
January 18, 2022 Vandana Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
VANDANA 2022.02.08 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Braham Chand
Arun Monga
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
