Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 362 (PNJ)

Ram Dev v. Chandigarh Transport Undertaking

2001-03-16

R.L.ANAND

body2001
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This appeal has been directed against the award dated 14.1.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh who dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellants, mainly, on the ground that they have not been able to prove their relationship with the deceased. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner:- Claimant-appellants filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. eight lacs for the death of Ram Jaggey alias Ram Ujagar who admittedly died in a motor vehicle accident. Case set up by the claimants was that on 13.10.1996 at about 8.25 A.M., Ram Jaggey alias Ram Ujagar was proceeding from his house situated in village Kajheri to his job and he was sitting on the carrier of a bicycle which was being paddled by a boy. When they reached near the picket of Home Guard in Sector 45, Chandigarh, a bus belonging to the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking bearing registration No. CH-O1-G-5362 came from behind. It was being driven rashly and negligently by Ishar Singh, respondent No. 2 who dashed his bus into cycle on which the deceased was sitting. As a result of the impact of dashing of the bus into the cycle Ram Jaggey suffered serious injuries and ultimately died on account of those injuries. The accident was witnesses by Ravinder Kumar. It was also alleged by the claimants that claimants 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased; claimant 3 is widow; claimant 4 is the minor son and claimant 5 is the minor daughter of the deceased. It was further alleged that all of them were dependant upon the income of the deceased. It was also alleged that the deceased was aged 25/26 years. He was working as a Mason and was earning Rs. 3500-4000 per month from that Job. 3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 denying all material allegations of the claimants. They pleaded that no accident took place as alleged. By denying other averments contained in the claim petition, they also denied the relationship of the claimants with the deceased and ultimately prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 denying all material allegations of the claimants. They pleaded that no accident took place as alleged. By denying other averments contained in the claim petition, they also denied the relationship of the claimants with the deceased and ultimately prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. Separate written statement was filed by respondent No. 2 and his stand was almost similar to that of respondents 1 to 3. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Ram Jaggey alias Ram Ujagar? OPP 2. Whether Ram Jaggey alias Ram Ujagar died in a motor vehicle accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of bus No. CH-O1-G-5362 by respondent No. 2, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents, if so, how much from which of them ? OPP 4. Relief. 6. Onus of issues 1 to 3 was placed on the claimants and, therefore, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal called upon the claimants to lead evidence. Issues in the claim petition were framed on 26.8.1998. Only two witnesses were examined by the claimants, namely Sunil Datta as PW-1 and Tara Singh as PW-2. On the conclusion of the proceedings, the Tribunal decided issue No. 1 against the claimants holding that no evidence was produced by the claimants on this issue and, therefore, they had failed to prove their relationship with the deceased or their dependency on him. Issue No. 2 was also decided against the claimants. Under issue No. 3, however, the Tribunal assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,25,500/-. But in view of findings on issues Nos. 1 and 2 recorded by the Tribunal, the claim petition was dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. G.S. Mann, Advocate, counsel for the appellants and Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and with their assistance I have examined the records. 9. It is an unfortunate case. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. G.S. Mann, Advocate, counsel for the appellants and Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and with their assistance I have examined the records. 9. It is an unfortunate case. We must note that the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act are social provisions and, therefore, the legislature in its wisdom has now even thought that the claim petition arising out of motor vehicle accidents may be instituted even at the place where the legal representatives/legal heirs of the deceased are residing. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal has been enhanced. It is true that in the present case, sufficient time was granted to the claimants to prove their relationship with the deceased. But in my opinion, still there is scope for granting more time to the claimants. I cannot lose sight of the fact that the deceased Ram Jaggey alias Ram Ujagar had come to Chandigarh for his survival and to earn his livelihood. The claimants hail from Uttar Pardesh as is evident from the post-mortem report of the deceased, Exhibit P-1, in which the address of the deceased has been given to be that of village Madra, Police Station Dhanghatta, District Basti (U.P.). From the addresses given by the claimants also, it is clear that they hail from Uttar Pardesh. It appears that they are very poor persons. There may be a communication gap between their counsel and the claimants. There can also be a financial difficulty for them to come to Chandigarh to attend the court for making their statements during the time when they were required to appear in court for the said purpose. 10. For the reasons stated above, I allow this appeal, set aside the findings of the Tribunal on all the issues and remand the case to the Tribunal with a direction to afford at least three effective opportunities to claimant- appellants who shall produce their entire evidence in support of the issues, the onus of which has been placed on them. For the reasons stated above, I allow this appeal, set aside the findings of the Tribunal on all the issues and remand the case to the Tribunal with a direction to afford at least three effective opportunities to claimant- appellants who shall produce their entire evidence in support of the issues, the onus of which has been placed on them. If the appellants do not conclude their evidence within four months from the date when they appear before the Tribunal, it will always be open to the Tribunal to again close the evidence of the claimants by order, and dispose of the claim petition according to law. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the court of District Judge, Chandigarh on 17.4.2001. The Registry shall send the records of the trial court forthwith. Appeal allowed.