Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 395 (PNJ)

Manjit Kaur v. Punjab State

2000-04-07

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2000
JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. - Three claim petitions bearing MACT Case No. 36 of 1991, 37 of 1991 and 35 of 1991, arising out of the same accident were disposed of together by the Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 2.12.1993. Thus the petitioners aggrieved by the award have filed separate FAO No. 247 of 1994, 248 of 1994 and 249 of 1994 and all these three FAOs will be decided together by this judgement. 2. The facts of the case have been taken out from FAO No. 247 of 1994 which are as under : 3. Sh. B.M. Puri, SDO B & R, Punjab, aged 42 years was on deputation with Punjab Mandi Board, and he was posted at Nawanshahr. On September 25, 1991 at about 5.30 P.M. he left in Fiat car No. CHE 0287 alongwith Sh. Nirmal Lal, Head Draftsman and Sh. Rajinder Singh Ahuja, Contractor for inspection of the roads. Charanjit Singh Driver was driving the car at a normal speed. The Junior Engineers were following the car on scooter. When the car had covered a distance of about one kilometer from village Zadla on Nawanshahr-Balachaur road, the car after crossing the truck had gone about 100 yards ahead when Bus No. PB-12 A/9112 came from the opposite side. It was driven by Bagga Singh Driver rashly and negligently. The Bus driver hit the same against the car as a result of which all the occupants of the car were seriously injured. Shri B.M. Puri and Nirmal Lal died at the spot. Charanjit Singh Driver (injured) was referred to PGI where he succumbed to the injuries. 4. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds that the claim petition is not maintainable. There were two other vehicles i.e. Car No. CHE-0287 and Truck No. HPA-1772 which were also involved in the accident and the particulars regarding owner, insurance company and the drivers of the above said vehicles were not mentioned by the claimants. In fact the Bus No. PB-12 A/9112 was coming from Chandigarh to Jalandhar. He was driving the bus at a normal speed. When the bus reached near the place of accident, a truck came from the opposite side followed by Car No. CHE-0287. In fact the Bus No. PB-12 A/9112 was coming from Chandigarh to Jalandhar. He was driving the bus at a normal speed. When the bus reached near the place of accident, a truck came from the opposite side followed by Car No. CHE-0287. The driver of the car accelerated the speed for overtaking the truck and when the driver of the car saw a bus Number PB-12 A/9112 coming from the opposite side, he further raised the speed to overtake the truck. By the time he realised that he will not succeed in overtaking the truck then the car driver became nervous and lost the control over the car. The car hit against the truck No. PHA-1772. The bus driver had slowed down the speed besides blowing the horn of the bus. He had steered the bus on the berm of the road of left side. But the car hit the bus after hitting the truck as the car driver could not control his car and also tried to overtake the truck on the main road by ignoring the traffic Rules. He had also ignored the traffic coming from the opposite side while overtaking. Thus the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the car driver. 5. The above controversy gave rise to the following issues :- 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle by respondent No. 3 ? OPA 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount the petitioners are entitled to compensation and from whom ? OPA 3. Relief. The learned Tribunal answered issue No. 1 in favour of the respondents and against the claimants holding thereby that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of car driver and not the bus driver. Resultantly the claimants were allowed the compensation under issue No. 2 to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- each on the basis of no fault liability to all the legal heirs of the deceased. The claimants, therefore, aggrieved by the finding recorded by the Tribunal preferred these appeals. 6. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants and Mr. H.S. Gill, DAG, appearing on behalf of Punjab State and Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate. 7. The claimants, therefore, aggrieved by the finding recorded by the Tribunal preferred these appeals. 6. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants and Mr. H.S. Gill, DAG, appearing on behalf of Punjab State and Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned award mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in law that the deceased were not on inspection duty as no official record has been produced. Even if it is presumed that the driver Charanjit Singh was negligent in causing the accident, still the persons travelling in the car namely Shri B.M. Puri and Shri Nirmal Lal had not contributed in any manner in causing the accident and, therefore, the respondents are liable on the principle of composite negligence to compensate the appellants. When two vehicles had struck against each other, the occupants of the vehicle do not contribute for the accident and, therefore, they cannot be denied compensation on account of negligent driving of the driver in which they were travelling. To support his argument, he has placed reliance on Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 1998(1) PLR 248 and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Maj. Hans Raj Saini, 1989(1) PLR 691. The facts of both these cases are different. In Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd (supra) there was collision of a bus with a train at unmanned level crossing resulting in death and injuries to several passengers of the bus. The fate of the case has to be decided on the basis of the facts as enunciated therein. 8. In the given case in hand, the learned Tribunal has carefully scanned the evidence led by the appellants and on the appraisal of the evidence arrived at a definite condusion that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent driver. The presence of the alleged eye witnesses on the spot appears to be doubtful. The police was set into motion on the statement of Lakhbir Lal as he is the maker of the FIR. He was allegedly driving the scooter at the time of accident. This witness has not been examined. One Rajinder Singh Govt. The presence of the alleged eye witnesses on the spot appears to be doubtful. The police was set into motion on the statement of Lakhbir Lal as he is the maker of the FIR. He was allegedly driving the scooter at the time of accident. This witness has not been examined. One Rajinder Singh Govt. Contractor was also travelling in the car which met with an accident and the said Rajinder Singh has also not been examined. He was equally an important witness as according to Satish Vohra, Rajinder Singh had received injuries. Neither Rajinder Singh has been examined nor his medico-legal report has been placed on record. Thus by not producing important witnesses and by withholding the important piece of evidence, an adverse inference is to be drawn against the appellant. For the sake of arguments Rajinder Singh was travelling in the same car which met with an accident and resulted into the death of three occupants travelling in the car, and miraculously said Rajinder Singh had survived. He must have received some injuries. If so then why Rajinder Singh has been withheld and why he has not been medically examined. The learned Tribunal has discussed the statement of the witnesses examined by the appellants at a great length. Thus the question of fact calls for no interference and above all appellants have not been able to make out a sufficient case for attributing negligence on the part of the respondent driver. Hence the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are hereby affirmed. 9. The appellants have already been awarded compensation on the principle of No fault Liability under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accident took place in the year 1991 and at that time the compensation awarded to the claimants on the principle of No fault Liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- which of course was substituted later on by Act 54 of 1994 with the words fifty thousand rupees for twenty five thousand rupees. Hence no case is made out for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons, FAO No. 247 of 1994, FAO No. 248 of 1994 and FAO No. 249 of 1994 are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.