Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 737 (PNJ)

Amarjit Kaur v. Union Of India

2003-05-19

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2003
Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. F.A.O. No. 902 of 1985 (Amarjit Kaur and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.) and F.A.O. No. 903 of 1985 (Jaswinder Kaur and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.) have been filed by the respective legal heirs of Beant Singh and Jaswant Singh, the two deceased, who were killed in an accident while travelling in car No. PUT 3535, which was allegedly hit by a Military truck No. 79D 40898, owned by respondent No. l, the Union of India, and driven by its driver LAC. B. Singh. F.A.O. No. 958 of 1985 (Zorawar Singh v. A.C.B. Singh and Anr.) has been filed by the owner of the aforesaid car, seeking compensation on account of the damages caused to his vehicle. 2. The facts of the case are that on 25.2.1984 at about 9.30 P.M. Jaswant Singh deceased accompanied by Beant Singh was going towards Railway Station, Patiala on car bearing No. PUT-3515, being driven by Jaswant Singh aforesaid. As they reached close to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, situated on the Mall Road, the truck aforesaid came from the opposite direction and rammed into the car, leading to the two fatalities. As per the claimants, the accidents was witnessed by Raghubir Singh (AW3) and Pritam Singh (AW6) and a report was also lodged with the police by them at about 11.15 P.M., the same night. The case of the claimants further was that the two injured were taken to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala by Raghubir Singh PW and others and were examined by Dr. Gurinderjit Singh (AW7), who declared them dead on arrival. The post mortem had been conducted by Dr. Gurindrejit Singh on 26.2.1984 after the dead bodies had been identified by the aforesaid two witnesses. 3. Several claim petitions as already mentioned above were thereafter filed. 4. The respondents put in appearance and contested the claim of the claimants. While admitting that the accident had in fact happened at the time and place mentioned in the claim petition, the negligence on the part of the truck driver was denied and it was pleaded that the Military truck was being driven at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road and that it was the car driver, who was in an inebriated condition who had dashed his car into the truck. It was also pleaded that the two eye-witnesses, i.e., Raghbir Singh and Pritam Singh had not witnessed the accident as it was in fact Gurmit Singh and Tehal Singh, who had taken the injured to the hospital. It was further pleaded that the facts of the case showed that the two deceased had taken the liquor and the accident had taken place on that account as well. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- Amarjit Kaur etc. v. Union of India. 1. Whether the road accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. 79D 40896 by respondent B. Singh which resulted in the death of Beant Singh? OPA 2. Whether claimant-petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Beant Singh? OPA. 3. To what amount of compensation by way of damages if any, are the claimant-petitioners entitled and if so from whom? OPA. 4. Relief. Jaswinder Kaur etc. v. Union of India. 1. Whether the road accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. 79D 40896 by respondent B. Singh which resulted in the death of Jaswant Singh? OPA. 2. Whether claimants are the legal representatives of deceased Jaswant Singh? OPA. 3. To what amount of compensation by way of damages if any, are the claimant petitioners entitled and if so from whom? OPA 4. Relief. Zorawar Singh v. Union of India 1. Whether the car No. PUT-3515 was damaged on account of the accident caused by respondent No. 1 while is the employment of respondent No. 2? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what account? OPP 3. Relief. 6. Issue No. 1, which was common to all the three cases was first taken up together by the Tribunal. It held that from the evidence that had come on record, it was clear that Raghbir Singh (AW3) and Pritam Singh (AW6) the alleged eye-witnessed, had in fact not witnessed the accident. Several factors were taken into account by the Tribunal to arrive at this conclusion; firstly, that the presence of Pritam Singh and Raghbir Singh PWs was unlikely and there was no occasion for them to accompany the other two persons at that time; secondly, that as per the evidence of Dr. Several factors were taken into account by the Tribunal to arrive at this conclusion; firstly, that the presence of Pritam Singh and Raghbir Singh PWs was unlikely and there was no occasion for them to accompany the other two persons at that time; secondly, that as per the evidence of Dr. Gurinderjit Singh (AW7) the two deceased had been identified in the hospital by Raghbir Singh and Pritam Singh aforesaid on the day of the post mortem (that is the day after the accident), which clearly showed that they had not been present at the spot as if present, the identity of the deceased would have been immediately revealed at the time of the admission of the deceased in the hospital on the day of the accident and thirdly, that another person who had apparently received injuries in the accident and had gained unconsciousness at the spot, had not been identified by the witnesses. It was also observed by the Tribunal that from the fact that a partially full bottle of liquor, empty soda water bottles and glasses had been recovered from the car, when read alongwith the evidence of the doctor (that the breath of the deceased was smelling of alcohol) it clearly revealed that the deceased Jaswant Singh was responsible for the accident and as such no interference in the finding of negligence on the part of the truck driver was called for. The claim petitions were ultimately dismissed. The present appeals have been filed, the detail of which has already been given. 7. Mr. H.S. Dhandi, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants in F.A.O. Nos. 902 and 903 of 1985 have argued that it appeared that Gurmit Singh and Tehal Singh, the so called witnesses of the accident, had connived with Jaswant Singh and the truck driver to defeat the claim of the appellants and as such their evidence could not be relied upon. It has also been urged that there was absolutely no justification in refusing to believe the presence of Pritam Singh and Raghubir Singh or to give a finding that the deceased had been drinking before or even at the time of the accident. 8. Mr. Munishwar Puri, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants in F.A.O. No. 958 of 1985 pertaining to the damage to the car has supported Mr. Dhandis arguments. 8. Mr. Munishwar Puri, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants in F.A.O. No. 958 of 1985 pertaining to the damage to the car has supported Mr. Dhandis arguments. The pleas raised by the counsel for the respondents have been controverted by Shri Sukant Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Union of India. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 10. The evidence, however, clearly reveals that the truck driver was not at fault. The entire case set up by the claimants is that the accident had been witnesses by Raghbir Singh and Pritam Singh AWs. This arguments has been repelled by the Tribunal. It is to be noted that these two witnesses claim to have been present at the time when the dead bodies had been taken to the hospital, but it is the admitted position that the dead bodies had been identified for the first time by these two witnesses on 26.2.1984, i.e., at the time of the post-mortem. Admittedly, the two witnesses and the deceased were well known to each other and they had in fact all attended the weeding ceremony of Jaswant Singhs brother that very morning. As per the facts a partially full bottle of liquor and empty bottles of soda had been recovered from the car, which clearly reveals that they were all drinking in the car when the accident happened. To my mind, therefore, the evidence of Gurmit Singh and Tehal Singh must be believed. Admittedly, they are the owners of the vehicle. In the report recorded by the Dr. Jaswant Singh at the time when the deceased had been taken to the hospital soon after the accident, they clearly stated that they had witnessed the accident, and had removed the two injured to the hospital in a rickshaw. No material has been pointed out from portion A to A as to why they had connived with the doctor as also the driver to defeat the claim of the claimants. The Tribunals findings are thus absolutely justified no facts. 11. It has finally urged by Mr. H.S. Dhandi that the claimants were nevertheless entitled to claim compensation under the no fault liability clause as provided under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This plea has not been controverted by the learned State counsel. The Tribunals findings are thus absolutely justified no facts. 11. It has finally urged by Mr. H.S. Dhandi that the claimants were nevertheless entitled to claim compensation under the no fault liability clause as provided under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This plea has not been controverted by the learned State counsel. The appeals are accordingly dismissed, but the respondent-Union of India shall pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to each set of claimants in respect of the two deaths within a period of three months from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them.