Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1127 (PNJ)

Narinder Kaur v. Sultani Singh @ Sultan Singh

2012-09-03

M.JEYAPAUL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.(Oral) - The claimants have challenged the order of dismissal passed by the Tribunal rejecting the claim filed by them on the ground that the accident was not established. 2. The parents of the deceased have contended in the claim petition that their son Paramjit Singh boarded the bus owned by Dhanesar Bus Service to proceed to his college at about 8.40 a.m. On 28.12.2007. The conductor of the bus, namely, respondent No.2 gave whistle even before the door of the bus was closed and the victim took his seat and the driver of the bus moved the vehicle all of a sudden and as a result of which Paramjit Singh fell down from the front door of the vehicle. The rear tyres of the bus crushed him and thereafter he succumbed to the grievous injuries he sustained in the motor accident. It has been alleged that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and lack of responsibility on the part of respondent No.2. 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 denied the accident. It has been stated that the bus owned by respondent No.3 had no connection with the alleged accident. Respondent No.3 on his part has contended that his vehicle was falsely involved in the alleged accident. Respondent No.4 has contended that respondent No.1 did not hold a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. Respondent No.4 also denied the accident. 4. The Tribunal having adverted to the evidence on record held that the accident involving the bus owned by respondent No.3 was not established. The evidence of PW1 who was an alleged eye witness to the occurrence was totally disbelieved by the Tribunal on the ground that his name did not figure in the FIR. Further his evidence was rejected on the ground that he could not come out with the name of the driver and conductor and the registration number of the offending bus. The Tribunal vehemently came down on the non-examination of the author of the FIR which was marked as Ex.P52. Even as per the FIR (Ex.P52), neither the name of the driver and the conductor nor the registration number of the vehicle was provided, it was further observed. The Tribunal also held that the averment in the claim petition did not disclose the registration number of the vehicle. Even as per the FIR (Ex.P52), neither the name of the driver and the conductor nor the registration number of the vehicle was provided, it was further observed. The Tribunal also held that the averment in the claim petition did not disclose the registration number of the vehicle. Ultimately, the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the alleged accident involving the vehicle of respondent No.3 was not established. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the evidence of PW1 has not been properly evaluated by the Tribunal. He being the eye witness, his evidence should have been accepted by the Tribunal. He would further submit that the Tribunal proceeded on the footing that the absence of registration number, the name of the driver and conductor of the offending vehicle in the FIR would belie the version of the eye witness PW1 examined on the side of the claimants. Producing supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. from the author of the FIR, he would submit that the author of the FIR has come out with registration number of the vehicle during further examination by the investigating officer. It is his submission that the registration number of the offending vehicle was specifically given in paragraph 14 of the claim petition. But the Tribunal has wrongly observed that such a reference is found only in the long cause title of the claim petition. Therefore, it is his submission that the order passed by the Tribunal warrants reversal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that the Tribunal has rightly evaluated the evidence and come to a decision that vehicle of respondent No.3 was not involved in the accident. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4-insurance company would submit that when the accident was denied by all the respondents, the claimants in all fairness should have examined the author of the FIR. In the FIR, the registration number, the name of the driver and the name of the conductor did not find a place. PW1 who was the alleged eye witness also could not speak about the registration number of the vehicle nor the involvement of the driver and conductor arrayed as respondents No.1 and 2 in the case. In the FIR, the registration number, the name of the driver and the name of the conductor did not find a place. PW1 who was the alleged eye witness also could not speak about the registration number of the vehicle nor the involvement of the driver and conductor arrayed as respondents No.1 and 2 in the case. Therefore, it is her submission that the Tribunal has rightly come to a conclusion based on the materials made available before it that the accident involving the bus of M/s Dhanesar Bus Service was not involved in the accident. 8. The short point which arises for determination is whether the bus bearing registration No.PB-13M-7645 owned by M/s Dhanesar Bus Service was involved in the motor accident wherein the son of the appellants sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. 9. The Tribunal was swept away by the fact that the author of the FIR was not examined before the Tribunal, that the registration number, the name of the driver and the conductor of the bus did not find a place in the FIR and that PW1, the alleged eye witness also did not refer to the registration number of the vehicle and the names of the driver and conductor of the bus. 10. In all fairness, the claimants should have examined the author of the FIR to establish clinchingly that the author of the FIR did witness the accident. But failure to examine the author of the FIR does not in all cases belie the version found in the FIR. The Tribunal which decides the accident case summarily cannot reject the version in the FIR just because the author was not examined before the Tribunal. In other words, the nuances of the Evidence Act cannot be strictly applied to the summary proceedings before the Tribunal. 11. The author of the FIR it appears has not referred to the registration number of the vehicle, the name of the driver and the conductor of the offending vehicle. It may be a case where the author has come out of a natural version about the occurrence as he could not recollect the registration number of the vehicle or the name of the driver or the name of the conductor. It may be a case where the author has come out of a natural version about the occurrence as he could not recollect the registration number of the vehicle or the name of the driver or the name of the conductor. It may also be a case where the vehicle was taken away immediately after the occurrence and as a result of which the driver and the conductor of the vehicle could not be identified by the author of the first information report. 12. In the instant case, PW1 of course would admit that the vehicle was stopped by the driver, but the driver and the conductor ran away from the place of accident immediately after stopping the vehicle. Therefore, even PW1 could not have gathered any information about the name of the driver and the conductor of the offending vehicle. 13. The evidence on record would indicate that PW1 in fact participated in the process of investigation as regards the subject accident and he was examined under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In my view, the evidence of PW1 should not have been rejected by the Tribunal even in the absence of the examination of the author of the FIR. In my view, the Tribunal has committed wrong in rejecting in-toto the evidence of PW1 who in fact lent support to the substance found in the FIR. 14. It is not as if the bus owned by M/s Dhanesar Bus Service could not be identified by any of the witnesses. The evidence on record would go to establish that it was only the bus plied by M/s Dhanesar Bus Service which caused the accident. Never had M/s Dhanesar Bus Service taken a stand that no bus from M/s Dhanesar Bus Service plied at 8.40 a.m. on the fateful day at the village where the accident took place. Unfortunately, M/s Dhanesar Bus Service had not brought any record to establish that no bus from M/s Dhanesar Bus Service plied in the said village at 8.40 a.m. on the fateful day. The best evidence available with M/s Dhanesar Bus Service has been withheld by respondent No.3. 15. At this appellate stage, the claimants also would come out with certain documents for exhibiting the same in order to strengthen their claim that it was only the bus bearing registration No.PB-13M-7645 owned by respondent No.3 which caused the accident. 16. The best evidence available with M/s Dhanesar Bus Service has been withheld by respondent No.3. 15. At this appellate stage, the claimants also would come out with certain documents for exhibiting the same in order to strengthen their claim that it was only the bus bearing registration No.PB-13M-7645 owned by respondent No.3 which caused the accident. 16. In the above facts and circumstances of this case, I find that some opportunity will have to be given not only to the claimants, but also to the respondents to lead further evidence as regards the alleged involvement of the bus bearing registration No.PB-13M-7645 owned by respondent No.3 in the subject accident. The appellants also shall examine the author of the FIR even if he has been won-over by the other side. Respondent No.3 also shall produce the route permit of the offending bus. Both the sides are entitled to lead further evidence touching upon the involvement of the said vehicle and the negligence attributed to respondents No.1 and 2. 17. With the above observation, the appeal is allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal of the motor accident case within 4 months from the date of receipt of the records from this Court after giving further opportunity to both the sides. 18. Both the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 21.9.2012. In the meantime, the material records of this case shall be sent back to the Tribunal.