Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 427 (PNJ)

Harbans Lal v. Nazar Singh

2001-04-17

MEHTAB S.GILL, S.S.SUDHALKAR

body2001
ORDER S.S. Sudhalkar, J. (Oral) - This appeal is field by the driver and the owner of the vehicle alleged to have been involved in an accident for which compensation has been awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following points during the course of arguments :- 1) First information Report was lodged late; 2) No post-mortem was carried out on the dead body of the deceased Tarsem Singh; and 3) Tractor was not involved in the accident. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that the defence raised cannot be sustained. The accident had taken place on September 23, 1995. The first Information Report was lodged on October 2, 1995. However, the date of the death of the deceased in a road accident is not in dispute. On the contrary, the stand taken by appellant No. 1 is that deceased Tarsem Singh and the injured Iqbal Singh were dead drunk at the time of accident. If this is the positive stand taken, the allegation of the absence of the driver at the time of accident cannot be accepted. The witnesses examined have given the name of appellant No. 1 Harbans Lal as a driver. There was no reason shown to us that if the accident had not taken place by the vehicle driven by appellant No. 1, how the name of appellant No. 1 Harbans Lal was given by the witnesses as a driver. No enmity is shown. On the contrary, if a wrong person had to be involved, then the injured or the survivors of the deceased would have involved the driver of a vehicle which was properly insured. Admittedly, vehicle of the appellant was not insured. The involvement of the tractor has been proved by the eye-witnesses, examined by the claimant-respondents. 4. In such cases, it cannot be expected that the injured or the survivors of the deceased would immediately rush to the Police Station for lodging the complaint. The Tribunal has dealt with the evidence in detail and we do not find any infirmity in the discussion of the evidence by the learned Tribunal. 5. Moreover, the appellants have not deposited the statutory amount as required under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Tribunal has dealt with the evidence in detail and we do not find any infirmity in the discussion of the evidence by the learned Tribunal. 5. Moreover, the appellants have not deposited the statutory amount as required under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). They have moved an application for exempting them from the depositing the amount. No provision of the Act has been shown to us by which the Court could grant such an exemption. This appeal also deserves to be dismissed on this count. It may be noted that in the application there is no request for postponing the date of the depositing of the amount. In view of the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.