Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 516 (PNJ)

Ram Karan v. Zile Singh

2001-05-10

R.L.ANAND

body2001
JudgmentJudgment R. L. Anand, J. 1. Unfortunately for the appellants, it is an unproved case and, therefore, I have no hesitation in dismissing this appeal. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. The claim petition was moved under sec. 166 of the Motor vehicles Act by Ram Karan, husband of phulwati, Rampal, Ganjroop Singh, Kamal singh, major sons of Ram Karan, Jaipal minor son of Ram Karan and Savitri Devi daughter of said Ram Karan, against Zile singh, Dhoop Singh, M/s Ganpati Finance limited and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the case set up by the claimants before the Tribunal was that Phulwati deceased was the wife of appellant No.1. She was aged about 50 years. She was working as an agriculture labourer and she used to earn Rs.1,000 per month. She was returning on 20.10.1992 at about 10.15 p. m. after answering the call of nature along with the wife of Ganjroop Singh when a four-wheeler being driven at a high speed came there. It was being driven negligently and rashly. The four-wheeler came from Jha-jhu side. The accident took place near the bus stand of village Dagrali when the alleged four-wheeler struck against Phulwati, who died at the spot due to the injuries and the driver of the four-wheeler fled away along with the four-wheeler from the spot. According to claimants-appellants the accident was witnessed by Ram Kala, son of Hardwari and Randhir, son of San-wal Ram besides the wife of Ganjroop singh. With these allegations, claimants made a prayer that they should be awarded rs.2,00,000 by way of compensation. 3. It is also the case of the claimants-appellants at the trial that at the time of the alleged accident the four-wheeler was being driven by Zile Singh, the respondent no.1. 4. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. According to respondent No.1 he never plied the four-wheeler on the road in question on 20.10.1992 and that the whole story of the accident with the four-wheeler was fabricated. The witnesses colluded with the claimants. United india Insurance Co. Ltd. also denied its liability in the same way as Dhoop Singh, the owner of the vehicle. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident had taken place owing to the rash and negligent act of respondent No.1 Zile Singh? The witnesses colluded with the claimants. United india Insurance Co. Ltd. also denied its liability in the same way as Dhoop Singh, the owner of the vehicle. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident had taken place owing to the rash and negligent act of respondent No.1 Zile Singh? (2) To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled and against whom? OPP (3) Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections taken in the written statement? (4) Relief. 6. The claimants-appellants led evidence. However, no evidence was led on behalf of respondent No.1. While determining the finding on the issue No.1, the tribunal held that it is not proved on the record that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent act of respondent No.1 Zile Singh. Issue No.2 was also decided against the claimants. Similarly, issue No.3 was decided against the claimants. Resultantly, the claim petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 2.1.97 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 7. Not satisfied with the findings of the tribunal the present appeal has been filed by the claimants. 8. During the pendency of the appeal, the claimants-appellants filed an application under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code for leading additional evidence. They want to place on record an application moved by Dhoop Singh making a prayer before the Magistrate for the release of the Tempo bearing registration No. HR 16-4089 on superdari; copy of the order dated 12.11.1992 vide which the Tempo was given on superdari; the copy of the order dated 25.1.1997 to show that F. I. R. No.185 dated 20.10.1992 was registered against Zile Singh, son of Partap Singh and copy of the charge-sheet dated 22.2.1993 framed against Zile Singh. 9. I have heard Mr. R. S. Sangwan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 10. Through this judgment I will dispose of the appeal as well as application under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure code. 11. First of all, I dispose of the application under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. Suman Jain, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 10. Through this judgment I will dispose of the appeal as well as application under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure code. 11. First of all, I dispose of the application under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the proposed additional evidence is necessary for the adjudication of the case and, therefore, those documents may be read into evidence. 12. There are two aspects involved in the application under Order 41, rule 27, civil Procedure Code. Should the appellate court allow the applicants-appellants to produce these documents? So far as the position of law is concerned, it is contained in Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure code. Even, if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the strict provisions of civil Procedure Code are not applicable, still the principle in general would apply. A reading of Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code would show that appellants cannot lead the additional evidence as a matter of right. The documents sought to be produced were in the knowledge of the appellants. Those documents could be obtained and produced before the Tribunal. Those were not produced and in this situation I will have to see whether for any substantial cause these documents should be taken into evidence or not and the second aspect of the case would be whether the proposed additional evidence advances the case of the appellants or not. 13. Firstly, I am of the opinion that the additional evidence cannot be led as a matter of course or right. The appellants have not been able to make out a case for additional evidence. Even the proposed additional evidence does not advance the case of the appellants. These documents are, in no way, pointer that Zile Singh was driving the four-wheeler on the relevant time and date or that the accident took place on account of his negligence. Mere framing of the charge will not suffice. Even the judgment of conviction or acquittal of criminal court is not binding on the Tribunal. The onus of proving negligence is always upon the claimants and they have to discharge it. 14. Resultantly, I dismiss the application of the appellants under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. 15. Mere framing of the charge will not suffice. Even the judgment of conviction or acquittal of criminal court is not binding on the Tribunal. The onus of proving negligence is always upon the claimants and they have to discharge it. 14. Resultantly, I dismiss the application of the appellants under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. 15. Now, let us see, what evidence has been led by the appellants before the Tribunal to prove the negligence. 16. With the assistance of the parties, I have gone through the evidence. 17. So far as the oral evidence is concerned, the claimants have only examined two witnesses; one is Ganjroop Singh and the other is Ram Kala. Ganjroop admittedly was not the eyewitness of the accident. As per the averments mentioned in the claim petition, Ram Kala saw the accident. Let us examine his statement. According to this witness on 20.10.1992 it was 10.15 p. m. in the night when he was at bus stand of Dagrali. A four-wheeler No.2089 came from Jhajhu side at fast speed and rashly. From this statement we are not in a position to know what is the other digits of the registration plate of the four-wheeler. The witness categorically stated that he does not know who was driving that four-wheeler. His statement is to the following effect: "i do not know who was driving that four-wheeler. " 18. In these circumstances, it is difficult for me to hold that Ram Kala was in a position to identify the driver of the four-wheeler. It is also difficult for me to show that Zile Singh was the driver when the case of Ram Kala is that the four-wheeler did not stop and it ran away. According to the claimants, this person lodged the report and the copy of the F. I. R. is Exh. PA. Even this document Exh. PA does not advance the case of the appellants. Firstly, f. I. R. is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a corroborative piece of evidence to the maker. A reading of Exh. PA would show that even the number of the four-wheeler has not been mentioned. Meaning thereby that the number 2089 mentioned by Ram Kala is an improvement. The wife of Ganjroop Singh has not been examined. 19. It is only a corroborative piece of evidence to the maker. A reading of Exh. PA would show that even the number of the four-wheeler has not been mentioned. Meaning thereby that the number 2089 mentioned by Ram Kala is an improvement. The wife of Ganjroop Singh has not been examined. 19. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the appellants have miserably failed to discharge the onus on issue no.1 and as such the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 is hereby affirmed. I also affirm the findings of the Tribunal on issue Nos.2 and 3 as I could not see any illegality in these issues. 20. Resultantly, I do not see any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.