Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 459 (PNJ)

Bikram Singh v. Sarwan Singh

2010-01-19

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2010
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This appeal by the owner of the offending vehicle is directed against the award dated 4.9.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (herein after referred to as "the Tribunal". 2. The respondent/claimant sought compensation on account of death of Buta Singh in a motor vehicular accident. The deceased, who was a rickshaw puller by profession was going on foot from Putlighar to Gawal Mandi, Amritsar on the; left side of the road, respondent No. 1 came driving mini bus bearing No. PB- 02-C-9699 from the side of Ram Titrath road in a rash and negligent manner and struck against Buta Singh, who received injuries and finally succumbed to those injuries at the spot. The compensation for the death was claimed being legal representative. 3. The claim was contested by the appellant and the driver by denying, the age and income of the deceased. Though, it was admitted that F.I.R. qua accident was registered but it was said to have registered with the connivance of the police, in orderto get compensation from them. The appellant admitted himself to be the owner of the offending vehicle. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues -- "1. Whether Buta Singh son of Ujagar Singh, died in a motor vehicular accident, which, occurred on 7.4.2004 at 12.30 p.m., in the area of Gawal Mandi, Ram firath road, Amritsar, by the use of motor vehicle, mini bus No. PB-02-C-9699 - OPP 2. Whether claimant is legal representative of deceased Buta Singh - OPP 3. To what amount of compensation, the claimant is to recover and form which of the respondents - OPA 5. Relief." 5. The learned Tribunal on application of evidence came to the conclusion that Buta Singh son of Ujagar Singh, died in a motor vehicular accident, which, occurred on 7.4.2004 at 12.30 p.m., in the area of Gawal Mandi, Ram Tirath road, Amritsar, by rash and negligent driving of mini bus No. PB-02-C-9699. The claimant was held to be the legal representative, and accordingly held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,92,000/- (Rupees one lac and ninety two thousand only). The vehicle was not insured, therefore, the liability of driver and owner was held to be joint and several. 6. The learned Tribunal held that registration of F.I.R., copy of which was Ex. 1,92,000/- (Rupees one lac and ninety two thousand only). The vehicle was not insured, therefore, the liability of driver and owner was held to be joint and several. 6. The learned Tribunal held that registration of F.I.R., copy of which was Ex. A-1, proved the fact that the accident was caused by respondent No. 1 in which Buta Singh died on 7.4.2005. In the F.I.R. the name of respondent No. 1, as driver was disclosed. The respondent No. 1 before the Criminal Court also faced trial in the F.I.R. This fact occupied, with the evidence of the claimant, resulted in answering of issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant. 7. Mr. S.S. Majithia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants challenged the award on the ground that there was no evidence to prove the accident, as claimant, who deposed in support of the claim petition, was admittedly not present at the spot, therefore, was not an eye witness to the occurrence. No other witness was examined. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant thereafter was, that respondent claimant failed to discharge the onus placed on him. 8. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Driver of the vehicle was acquitted of the charge, by the Criminal Court, therefore, there was no basis to hold the appellants responsible for compensation. 9. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Once, it is proved that the appellant driver was tried for this accident, this leaves no manner of doubt that the accident had occurred, as claimed by the claimant. No fault, therefore, can be found with the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1. The mere fact that the driver is acquitted in a criminal case, cannot be a ground to set aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal, as the Tribunal has to decide the case on the probabilities, whereas in the criminal Court the findings have to be recorded beyond reasonable doubt. 10. No reason is forthcoming as to why the vehicle of the appellants was involved in the accident, as no enmity was proved against the police or claimant, against whom the connivance of false implication was alleged. 11. 10. No reason is forthcoming as to why the vehicle of the appellants was involved in the accident, as no enmity was proved against the police or claimant, against whom the connivance of false implication was alleged. 11. It is well settled law that registration of F.I.R. is one of the factor which can be the basis to hold that accident had in fact occurred, as suggested. 12. No ground, therefore, is made out to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal.