Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 471 (PNJ)

Tarsem Lal v. Sunita Devi

2012-03-20

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.: (Oral) - The owner has filed the present appeal assailing the impugned Award dated 10.6.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SBS Nagar, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the claim petition was allowed and a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- was awarded as compensation to be paid by the owner (appellant) as well as the driver of the offending tractor jointly and severally. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 7.6.2008, Rekha Rani (since deceased) alongwith some other children were coming back to their village from Shah Jinda Peer. A tractor make Ford 3600, being driven by Balraj Kumar @ Billu at a very high speed, turned towards the Katcha road. The driver was under influence of some intoxicants and had been playing loud mousic. He was unable to control the tractor and met with an accident. In the said accident, Rekha Rani and Ajay Kumar suffered multiple grievous injuries. Rekha Rani was brought to Guru Nanak Hospital Dahan Kaleran, where she succumbed to the injuries, whereas Ajay Kumar was brought to Mangat Hospital, where he remained admitted for few days. In this regard FIR No.0131 dated 7.6.2008 was lodged at Police Station Banga. The claimant filed the claim petition. Upon notice, the respondents filed their written statements denying the accident. 3. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether respondent No.1 on 7.6.2008 in the area of village Kahma drove vehicle No.PB-07C-5178 rash and negligent resulting into death of Rekha Rani daughter of Hussan Lal?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled to and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable ? OPR 4. Relief. 4. After anayling the evidence led by the parties and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal decided the issues in the following manner:- 5. While deciding issue No.1, the learned Tribunal has held that the testimony of the claimant was duly corroborated by Prem Lal. Thus, it is clearly proved that the claimant received several injuries in the accident caused by respondent No.1 while driving the tractor bearing registration No.PB 07C 5178 in a rash and negligent manner and decided the issue in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. 6. Thus, it is clearly proved that the claimant received several injuries in the accident caused by respondent No.1 while driving the tractor bearing registration No.PB 07C 5178 in a rash and negligent manner and decided the issue in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. 6. Issue No.2 was decided in favour of the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- as compensation to them being the parents of the deceased. 7. Onus to prove issue No.3 was on the respondents. But they could not point out as to how this claim petition is not maintainable and the issue was decided accordingly. 8. Being dissatisfied with the impugned Award, Tarsem Lal, the owner of the tractor filed the present appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in law while deciding the issue of liability. It has further been submitted that there are material discrepancies in the statements of the witness of the claimants. He further submits that Hussain Lal, PW1 was not an eye witness. He further states that the deceased was a child of 14 years, and was unable to earn anything. However, the learned Tribunal by taking dependency, determined the compensation, which is wrong. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation. The deceased was a student of 8th Class at the time of accident. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 12. Admittedly, Rekha Rani died in the accident on 7.6.2008. The relevant extract of para Nos. 11 and 12 of the impugned Award, in which the learned Tribunal, while deciding issue No.1 gave its finding, is reproduced below:- “...From the evidence, the claimant has duly proved that on 7.6.2008, he alongwith some children were coming back from the religious place of Shah Jinda Peer towards their village. At once from the side of village Kahma, one tractor Ford 3600 came at very high speed, which was being driven by respondent No.1 Balraj Kumar @ Billu s/o Jaspal Singh, who was under some intoxicants and he was driving the tractor at very high speed and turned the tractor towards kucha road and caused accident. At once from the side of village Kahma, one tractor Ford 3600 came at very high speed, which was being driven by respondent No.1 Balraj Kumar @ Billu s/o Jaspal Singh, who was under some intoxicants and he was driving the tractor at very high speed and turned the tractor towards kucha road and caused accident. In the accident, Rekha Rani and Ajay Kumar suffered several injuries on the vital parts of the body. Rekha Rani died and claimant Ajay Kumar received several injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. 9. The testimony of the claimant was duly corroborated by Prem Pal. Thus, it is clearly proved that the claimant received several injuries in the accident caused by respondent No.1, while driving the tractor bearing registration No.PB-07C-5178 in rash and negligent manner. As such, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents.” 13. Apart from this, the FIR was lodged on the same day by Prem Pal against Baljraj Kumar, the driver. The owner of the tractor got the same released on superdari. Moreover, driver Balraj Kumar was also facing the trial in the criminal proceedings, regarding this accident. 14. Admittedly, the deceased was 14 years of age at the time of the accident. She was a student of 8th Class standard. Therefore, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and appropriate and no interference is warranted. 15. In view of the above discussion, this Courts finds no ground to interfere in the well reasoned award dated 10.6.2010, passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, the present appeal is dismissed being bereft of any merit. ------------------