Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 730 (PNJ)

Kuldeep Kaur v. Bhupinder Singh

2012-05-18

K.C.PURI

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Puri, J.: (Oral) - Challenge in this appeal is to the Award dated 07.10.2004 passed by Shri Inderjit Singh, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar, vide which claim petition preferred by the widow and minor children of deceased Harpreet Singh, was dismissed. 2. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lacs on account of death of Harpreet Singh in a motor vehicular accident. 3. It is pleaded that on 05.02.2002, the deceased was going from the Hotel of his brother from Truck Union, Mohali to his residence. Harpreeet Singh was on his Enfield Motorcycle bearing No. PBP-9555. When he reached near MOI Chowk, Mohali, his motorcycle struck against the truck which was negligently parked without indicators and parking lights. The driver of truck bearing No. PB-12-C-1348 parked the truck without applying traffic rules. There was darkness and the deceased struck with the stranded truck and resultantly died at the spot. With the sudden death of deceased, his wife and children suffered a lot. A great shock was also caused to his wife and children due to sudden death of deceased. Appellant claimant Kuldeep Kaur is suffering from so many complications and has gone mentally upset on account of death of her husband. Claimant No.3 was in the womb of claimant No.1-Kuldeep Kaur, when Harpreet Singh died and delivery took place after one month of the death of deceased. 4. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. Respondent No.1 filed written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition and pleaded that he is not responsible for any accident and had not hand for the same and has prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed written statement denying allegations and pleaded that claimants have made up a false and concocted story. No accident took place with the truck in question and as such, the claim petition is not maintainable. 6. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal :- 1. Whether respondent No.1 Bhupinder Singh drove Truck No. PB-12-C-1348 in a rash and negligent manner on 05.02.2002 at about 5 AM in the area of P.S. Mohali and caused injuries to Harpreet Singh son of Joginder Singh, resulting into his death ? OPP 2. 6. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal :- 1. Whether respondent No.1 Bhupinder Singh drove Truck No. PB-12-C-1348 in a rash and negligent manner on 05.02.2002 at about 5 AM in the area of P.S. Mohali and caused injuries to Harpreet Singh son of Joginder Singh, resulting into his death ? OPP 2. Whether the claimants are the legal heirs, next friends and dependents upon the deceased Harpreet Singh ? OPP 3. Is the petition not maintainable ? OPR 4. Whether respondent No.1 was not having a valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident ? OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR 6. To what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to recovery ? If so, from whom ? OPP 7. Relief. 7. The claimant Kuldeep Kaur herself stepped into the witness box as PW-2 and examined Amritpal Singh as PW-1, Varinder Kumar as PW-3 and tendered copy of FIR, copy of post mortem report, copy of salary certificate. 8. In rebuttal, respondents examined HC Sulakhan Singh as RW-1 who proved other documents. 9. Learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence, returned the findings on Issue No.1 against the claimants. Issue No.2 was decided in favour of claimants. Issues No.3 to 6 were decided against the respondents. In view of findings returned on Issues No.1, the claim petition was dismissed. 10. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said Award dated 07.10.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar, the claimants have preferred the present appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, has submitted that in para no.17 of the Award, the Tribunal has held that the deceased died in an accident with the offending vehicle. It was further observed by the Tribunal that the truck was stranded on the road. It is further contended that occurrence has taken place at 5:00 A.M. The parking lights and indicators were not there. The accident has taken place due to sole negligence of driver of the truck as the truck was parked in the middle of road without any indicators at night hours. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon authority “Amarjit Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others” 1999 (3) PLR 26 and “Gurdial Singh and other vs. The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another” 1999 (2) PLR 71. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon authority “Amarjit Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others” 1999 (3) PLR 26 and “Gurdial Singh and other vs. The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another” 1999 (2) PLR 71. 13. It is submitted that in both these authorities, it has been held that parking of bus or truck without any indicators or parking lights amount to negligence. In Gurdial Singh’s case (supra), the negligence of the driver of offending bus was held to be 75%. In Amarjit Kaur’s case (supra), this Court held that tractor was not completely off the road and driver of the tractor has not taken the precautions of having red lights and reflectors, in that case the driver of the tractor is negligent. The Tribunal has not taken into account that aspect of the case. 14. Otherwise also, the Tribunal has not assessed the amount of compensation. It was the duty of Tribunal to assess the compensation and if the appeal would have been accepted, in that case, the amount of compensation could not be adjudged. 15. In the present case, the file of this Court is stated to have been burnt in the fire incident and the same has been reconstructed. 16. So, in view of the above circumstances, it is a fit case where the case be remanded back to the Tribunal to decide afresh regarding negligence of the driver of the truck. The extent of contribution made by the driver of the truck and deceased has also to be assessed by the Tribunal. So, after resolving the said controversy, the Tribunal is also required to assess the amount of compensation and make apportionment in respect of contributory negligence keeping in view Amarjit Kaur’s case (supra) and Gurdial Singh’s case (supra), and all other laws cited by the parties. In case, the file of Tribunal is also burnt in the fire incident of this Court, in that case, the Tribunal shall reconstruct the file and thereafter decide the case. 17. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 14.06.2012. The remaining respondents may be summoned by the Tribunal. 18. Disposed of accordingly. 19. The order be conveyed to the concerned Tribunal.