Motor accident compensation appeal against rejection of a claim for the death of Dalip Chand Garg, a retired Head Master. The High Court found the Tribunal's reasons for doubting the eyewitness flimsy, held the death resulted from rash and negligent driving, and decided the issues in favour of the claimant.
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.
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
RAJ KUMAR 2024.12.20 20:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment
(O&M)
-2-
RAJ KUMAR 2024.12.20 20:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment
(O&M)
-3-
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
RAJ KUMAR 2024.12.20 20:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment
(O&M)
-4- disputed that PW4 Rajesh J ain is sister’s son of decease d Dalip Chand. PW4 Rajes h Jain while appearing in th e witness box has fully corr o borated the version of petitio n and also FIR in part, i.e., only part before the polic e endorsement. In his cross examination so far as the FI R (Exh.P11) is concerned in th e police endorsement it has bee n written by HC Surinder K umar that on 12.03.2003 h e alongwith constable Gian Chand was present at Balde v Nagar Chowk. In the mean t ime, he received an informatio n that injured lying admitted i n Sarwal Hospital, Ambala City . On this HC Surinder Kumar reached Sarwal Hospital wher e after receiving the medical r uqqa, he moved an applicatio n and obtained the opinion of doctor according to whic h injured was unfit to make a s tatement. It has further come i n the endorsement of the po l ice that on 13.03.2003 in th e morning hours they receiv e d an information that injure d Dalip Chand son of Banwa r i Lal, resident of 747, Housin g Board Colony, Baldev Nag a r, was lying admitted in PGI , Chandigarh. On receiving this information HC Surinde r Kumar alongwith Constab l e Gian Chand reached PGI , Chandigarh where on the ap p lication moved by HC Surinde r Kumar injured was declare d unfit to make statement. It i s also mentioned in the en d orsement that at that time n o person who witnessed the a c cident was present near injured . The FIR was recorded only on the statement of Rajesh Jai n which was made by him t o HC Surinder Kumar in th e evening on 13.03.2003 whi l e said Surinder Kumar was o n patrolling duty.
RAJ KUMAR 2024.12.20 20:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment
(O&M)
-5-
RAJ KUMAR 2024.12.20 20:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment
(O&M)
-6- cross examination conducte d on behalf of respondent No. 3 deposed that he asked the n a me of the driver, who disclose d his name and except his na m e he had not disclosed anythin g at that time. It has also com e in the cross examination of th e witness that the name of th e driver was not got recorded b y him before the police, wher e as in the FIR name of the drive r and car number have been m entioned.
RAJ KUMAR 2024.12.20 20:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment
(O&M)
-7-
A perusal of the above sh o ws that the learned Tribuna l dismisse d the claim petition on flimsy g rounds. The learned Tribuna l observed that the author of the FIR shoul d know which portion of the ca r hit with h is maternal uncle and doubted his presence as eye witness . Further, t h at Dr. Sarwal in the medical r u qa noted down in the record th e arrival o f an unknown person and if as p e r the statement of PW-4 Rajes h Jain, he g ot admitted Dalip Chand in S a rwal Hospital but name of th e patient is not there. Therefore, this cou r t does not accept the reasonin g given by learned Tribunal for dismissin g the claim petition filed by th e appellant .
ANALYSIS OF RECORD
The perusal of the written statement filed on behalf o f responde n ts No.1 and 2, in para 21 r e spondents have stated that th e claimant h as demanded too much exces s ive amount which she does no t deserve a n d further in para 22 that the deceased was 69 years of age an d was getti n g pension as well.
RAJ KUMAR 2024.12.20 20:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment
(O&M)
-8-
A perusal of Exhibit P-6 show s the admission and discharge o f Dalip C h and in Philadelphia Hospital, Ambala City. The FIR wa s registere d immediately after the accident. The medical ruqa was sent t o the Poli c e Station Baldev Nagar by S arwal Hospital, Ambala Cit y informin g admission of unknown person in their hospital. If, the hospita l authorities having written the name of th e patient, it cannot be presume d that the person, who took the injured to t h e hospital did not inform abou t the name of the person who was admitt e d. Nirmala Devi wife of Dali p Chand w a s examined as PW-1, who st a ted the factum of accident an d admissio n of her husband in Sarwal Hos p ital, Ambala City wherefrom h e was refer r ed to the PGI, Chandigarh, driv e n by respondent No.1.
Ms. Shally, Additional Ahlm a d to Court of Chief Judicia l Magistra t e, Ambala was examined as P W -3 who brought the summone d record p e rtaining to FIR No.85 date d 13.03.2003 registered unde r Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC at P o lice Station Baldev Nagar fo r causing i n juries to Dalip Chand by rash a nd negligent driving of car No . DL-2CK - 7393.
Sh. Rajan Jain eye witness to the incident was examined a s PW-4. H e stated the factum of accide n t. He further stated that Dali p Chand was got admitted in Sarwal Ho s pital and thereafter referred t o PGI, C h andigarh. There is no maj o r discrepancy in his cross - examinat i on.
Dr. Rahul Gupta, Senior R e sident, Department of Neur o Surgery, P GIMER, Chandigarh, was exa m ined as PW-5, who stated tha t the patie n t Dalip Chand came to Emer g ency OPD on 13.03.2003 wit h
RAJ KUMAR 2024.12.20 20:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment
(O&M)
-9-
alleged history of hit by car in Ambal a City on 12.03.2003. He wa s discharged on 14.03.2003. Thereaft e r, he visited PGI again o n 16.06.20 0 3 with a chronic subdural hem a toma for which he was operate d upon on 1 6.06.2003 but expired on 20.06.2003. He further stated that th e second disease is a sequel of initial head i njury. In his cross-examinatio n he denie d the suggestion that it is incor r ect to suggest that patient die d due to hi s own negligence and his deat h has no nexus with the allege d accidenta l injuries.
A perusal of the above analysi s of the record shows that deat h of Dalip Chand Garg was caused due t o rash and negligent driving o f offendin g vehicle by respondent No.1 a n d therefore, this court decide s issue No.1 in favour of the appellant.
So far as the issue No.2 is c o ncerned, the evidence is ver y much on r ecord to show that Dalip Chan d Garg was drawing a pension o f 8459/- p er month who retired as Hea d Master. He was also earnin g from doi n g tuition work.
RAJ KUMAR 2024.12.20 20:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment
(O&M)
-10 -
RAJ KUMAR 2024.12.20 20:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment
(O&M)
-11 -
RAJ KUMAR 2024.12.20 20:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment
(O&M)
-12 -
RAJ KUMAR 2024.12.20 20:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment
(O&M)
-13 -
RAJ KUMAR 2024.12.20 20:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment
(O&M)
-14 -
RAJ KUMAR 2024.12.20 20:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment
(O&M)
-15 -
| 1. 2. |
|---|
| 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. |
RAJ KUMAR 2024.12.20 20:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment
(O&M)
-16 -
RAJ KUMAR 2024.12.20 20:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment
(O&M)
-17 -
RAJ KUMAR 2024.12.20 20:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the death of Dalip Chand Garg was caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending car by respondent No.1?
Whether the Tribunal's dismissal of the claim petition on doubts about the eyewitness was justified?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Appellant (claimant)
Respondent No.1 (driver of car No. DL-2CK-7393)
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.3 (insurer)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
