Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 672 (PNJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamaljit Kaur

2012-05-04

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.: - The Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal for setting aside the award dated 28.5.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, (to be referred as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the appellant alongwith respondent Nos. 6 to 8 were held liable to satisfy the award. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 3.8.2007, Satnam Singh (since deceased) was going towards Rajpura on his motorcycle. He struck against a truck bearing registration no.RJ-31GA-0843, parked unattended in the middle of the road near Karan Palace. It was time about 8.15 PM. The deceased could not notice it due to darkness as the same was parked without any indicator. As a result thereof, he fell down and started bleeding profusely from nose and ears. He was followed by his cousin on his motorcycle. He was rushed to AP Jain Hospital, Rajpura and was further referred to Chandi Mandir, where he succumbed to the injuries after 13/14 days of the accident The accident was witnesses by Jagir Singh. 3. The claim petition was filed by the claimants. Upon notices, respondent No.1 did not appear, however, respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed their written statements separately by denying the accident. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether on 3.8.2007 in the area of Karan Palace the respondent No.1 while driving Truck bearing No.RJ- 31-GA-0843 rashly and negligently caused the death of Satnam Singh, as alleged?OPP 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from which of the respondent?OPP 3. Whether the driver of Truck No.RJ-31GA-0843 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged?OPR 4. Whether the driver of the truck bearing No.RJ- 31GA-0843 was not having valid route permit, registration certificate and fitness certificate at the time of accident, as alleged?OPR 5. Relief. 5. After analysing the evidence led by the parties and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal decided the issues as under:- 6. Issue no.1 was decided in favour claimants and against the respondent holding the driver of the offending truck liable for rash and negligent driving and accident. 7. Relief. 5. After analysing the evidence led by the parties and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal decided the issues as under:- 6. Issue no.1 was decided in favour claimants and against the respondent holding the driver of the offending truck liable for rash and negligent driving and accident. 7. Issue No.2 was also decided in favour of the claimants, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,67,000/-, which has been enhanced to Rs.4,27,000/- by this Court vide order of even dated passed in FAO No.6388 of 2010, filed by the claimants. 8. Issue No.3 was not pressed by the respondents, but the learned Tribunal has observed that the same is proved that the driver was authorised to drive HTV. 9. Aggrieved against the findings given by the learned Tribunal, the appellant -Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Jagir Singh was not an eye witness. He refers to his statement and states that he reached the spot 4-5 minutes after the accident. He has further referred to the site plan and states that the truck was parked at the extreme left side of the road. It is further contended that at the most it could be a case of contributory negligence. Lastly, he argued that regarding route permit, issue was framed, but no finding was recorded in this regard. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Rani and others vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and others 2009 ACJ 2003 . 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has submitted that truck was parked in the middle of the road without any parking light or indicator. It is further submitted that statement of Jagir Singh, who was an eye witness, was rightly appreciated by the learned Tribunal. The site plan is not an exhibited document. She also refers to the statement of Baldev Singh and states that the version rendered by Jagir Singh is fully corroborated. It is further submitted that neither the driver was examined, nor the owner of the offending truck appeared before the learned Tribunal. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 13. There is nothing on record to suggest that PW2 Jagir Singh was not an eye witness. It is further submitted that neither the driver was examined, nor the owner of the offending truck appeared before the learned Tribunal. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 13. There is nothing on record to suggest that PW2 Jagir Singh was not an eye witness. He is the author of the FIR. He has given details of the accident in his statement, which cannot be ignored simply on the fact that he stated that he had reached at the spot after 4-5 minutes after the accident, as he was following the deceased at the time of accident. Sometimes, a truthful witness could not depose as what law requires due to his illiteracy or poor way of expressing the things. Such minor omission cannot make him unreliable witness. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold the appellant liable to cause the accident. Moreover, Ex.R5 is not an exhibited document. The driver and the owner were not examined to negate the stand taken by Jagir Singh PW2. Moreover, they were not present at the time of accident. Therefore, an adverse inference deserves to be drawn against them. From the perusal of the written statement filed by the appellant- Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal, no averment was made regarding contributory negligence and the accident has been denied. The site plan was not an exhibited document. From the site plan, contributory negligence cannot be inferred especially when there is a categoric direct version of eye witness Jagir Singh. It is proved on record that the truck was parked without any indicator or parking lights, which act itself is sufficient to hold that the driver negligent. He did not come forward to controvert the assertion made by the claimants. Regarding route permit, it is not significant in the instant case. The authority cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on the facts of the case. 14. In view of the above discussion, no interference is warranted in the well reasoned award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.