Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 533 (PNJ)

Tarwinder Singh v. Ishwar Chand Mittal

2001-05-13

R.L.ANAND

body2001
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This F.A.O. has been directed against the award dated 7.1.1993, passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, who, partly allowed the claim-petition of the claimant Shri Tarwinder Singh and awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- only by way of compensation against respondents No. 1 to 3, jointly and severally on account of no fault liability. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Tarwinder Singh filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed a compensation of Rupees twenty-three lacs on the ground that he had suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident caused by rash and negligent driving of Canter No. HR-04/0233, driven by respondent No. 2, Sahib Singh. The Canter was owned by Ishwar Chand Mittal, respondent No. 1 and it was insured with respondent No. 3. 3. The case set up by the appellant is that he was employed as Junior Engineer in the Punjab Public Health Department and was drawing Rs. 3205/- as pay including all allowances and was also the owner of a Maruti Car No. DDC 8217. On 17.7.1990, he had gone to village Jabli, on official duty, along with some other officials of the Department. The claimant-appellant was driving the car. While returning back, when they reached near Surajpur bridge on Amabala-Kalka Road, one four wheeler canter No. HR-04/0233 driven by respondent No. 2 came from the front side at the high speed without blowing any horn and without caring for the bends in the road and hit the Maruti car of the claimant on the right side. As a result of this accident, the claimant-appellant had suffered injuries on his person including almost separation of right arm which was later amputated in the PGI Chandigarh and left hand was put under plastic bandage. It was alleged by the claimant that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. The claimant was 36 years old at the time of the accident. He spent a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on medicines. He further spent a sum of Rs. 4500/- on special diet. He had suffered a permanent disability of 85%. With this disability he has lost the chances of his promotion. With these allegations, the appellant has claimed a compensation to the tune of rupees twenty three lacs. 4. He spent a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on medicines. He further spent a sum of Rs. 4500/- on special diet. He had suffered a permanent disability of 85%. With this disability he has lost the chances of his promotion. With these allegations, the appellant has claimed a compensation to the tune of rupees twenty three lacs. 4. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. Joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 in which they had denied the allegations. According to these respondents, the four-wheeler Canter was standing in a break down condition on its left side of the road. The petitioner-appellant was negligent. He dashed the car against the standing canter. It was further pleaded that had there been any negligence on the part of respondent No. 2, he would been involved in a criminal case. Even the father of the claimant admitted the fault of his son who was under the influence of liquor at the time of the accident. The amount of compensation claimed by the appellant is highly exaggerated. In the alternative, it was pleaded by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that in case the liability is fixed, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the claimant suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident caused by rash and negligent driving of Canter No. HR-04/0233 driven by respondent Sahib Singh ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 4. Whether the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the claim for the reasons mentioned in the preliminary objections ? OPD-3 5. Relief. The parties were given the opportunities to lead the evidence and on the conclusion of the proceedings, issue No. 1 was decided against the claimant and in favour of respondent No. 1 to 3. 6. Under issue No. 2, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- by way of compensation on account of no fault liability. Issues No. 3 and 4 were decided against the respondents and finally the claim petition was partly allowed by awarding a sum of Rs. 6. Under issue No. 2, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- by way of compensation on account of no fault liability. Issues No. 3 and 4 were decided against the respondents and finally the claim petition was partly allowed by awarding a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in favour of the claimant- appellant. 7. Not satisfied with the award dated 7.1.1993, the present appeal has been filed by the claimant-injured. 8. I have heard Shri V.B. Aggarwal and Shri K.G. Chaudhary, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Gopal Mittal, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 9. After going through the record of the case, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not rightly decided issue No. 1. Negligence on the part of the driver of the Canter is at writ large in view of the statement made by the injured Shri Tarwinder Singh. There is no satisfactory proof on the record that the Canter was standing on the road or that the Maruti car struck against the standing Canter. Merely that the driver of the Canter was not involved in the criminal case, is no ground to come to a conclusion that he was not at fault. The alleged admission of the father of the petitioner-appellant is not binding on the petitioner. We are supposed to assess the evidence independently. The father of the claimant-appellant was not an eye witness. Tarwinder Singh appeared as PW7 and he categorically stated that the driver of the Canter was coming from the opposite direction and he did not bother about the curve of the road and dashed the Canter against the Maruti Car. Even it has come in the statement of the claimant that the accident took place at about 8.00 p.m. in the middle of July, 1990 and the driver did not give any dipper nor did he blow any horn and dashed the Canter against the Maruti Car. The statement of Shri Tarwinder Singh has been corroborated by Dalbir Singh PW-8, who, also stated that Canter was at a rash speed and when he wanted to take a turn, it lost the balance and struck against the car which was being driven by the claimant. The statement of Shri Tarwinder Singh has been corroborated by Dalbir Singh PW-8, who, also stated that Canter was at a rash speed and when he wanted to take a turn, it lost the balance and struck against the car which was being driven by the claimant. The bald statement of the interested witness namely Shri Sahab Singh, respondent No. 2, cannot override the convincing and the stamped witness like Shri Tarwinder Singh. 10. In this view of the matter, I reverse the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1. Since I have reversed the finding of Tribunal on issue No. 1, therefore, I allow this appeal and set aside the entire award and the case is remanded to the Court of Tribunal with the direction to give a fresh finding on issue No. 2. The finding on issue No. 2 be given by the Tribunal within three months from the receipt of the copy of this order. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on 3.4.2001. The registry is directed to send the records forthwith. Appeal allowed.