Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 781 (PNJ)

Hakam Singh v. Paramjit Singh

2012-05-30

K.C.PURI

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. K.C. Puri, J.: - Challenge in this appeal is the award dated 8.5.1996 passed by Shri S.S.Grewal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar vide which the claim petition preferred by Hakam Singh claimant/appellant was dismissed. 2. The case of the claimant/appellant as set forth before the Tribunal was that on 14.9.1991 at about 5.00 p.m., claimant was travelling on scooter bearing registration No. CHO-3638. He was sitting on the pillion seat and the same was being driven by Kulwant Singh at a slow speed and on the left side of the road. They started from village Teheri and were going towards village Gharuan. They crossed near Machhipur and had gone half a kilometer ahead, at that time a Swaraj tractor bearing registration No. HRX-4309 came from the left side i.e. katcha path and took sudden right turn and struck against the scooter. Claimant sustained injuries due to the accident whereas Kulwant Singh fell on the road. Both of them were taken to the hospital. The accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Swaraj Tractor by its driver Paramjit Singh. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicular accident. 3. Respondents appeared and filed written reply denying the allegation. The factum of accident was emphatically denied. It is further pleaded that petition has been filed at the instance of Ajmer Singh, who had been playing fraud with the respondent with the help of his enemy. The application is beyond limitation. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- 1. Whether Hakam Singh has received injuries as a result of accident dated 14.9.1991 caused by Paramajit Singh respondent while driving tractor No.HRX-4309 rashly and negligently ?OPP 2. Whether there are sufficient grounds for the condonation of delay ? OPP 3. To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimant is entitled to recover and from whom ? OPP 4. Relief. 5. Hakam Singh claimant appeared as PW-1 as his own witness and has also examined PW-2 Sohan Singh, PW-3 Dr. Lalit Kaushal and PW-4 Tejinder Singh. 6. In rebuttal, respondents examined RW-1 Bant Singh and RW- 2 Paramajit Singh respondent himself appeared as his own witness. 7. The learned Tribunal returned the finding on issue No.1 against the claimant. Issue No.2 was also decided against the claimant. Lalit Kaushal and PW-4 Tejinder Singh. 6. In rebuttal, respondents examined RW-1 Bant Singh and RW- 2 Paramajit Singh respondent himself appeared as his own witness. 7. The learned Tribunal returned the finding on issue No.1 against the claimant. Issue No.2 was also decided against the claimant. While deciding issue No.3, it was held that claimant would have entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- in case claim petition would have been accepted. Ultimately the claim petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. 8. Counsel for the respondents is fair enough to concede that the finding of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition on the ground of limitation does not sustain. 9. The Parliament in its wisdom has deleted the clause of limitation in amended Act of 1988. Otherwise also, the claimant suffered amputation and that itself is a good ground for condonation of delay, if there would have been any limitation for filing the claim petition. So, finding of issue No.2 stands reversed. 10. The main issue in the present case is in respect of issue No.1, whether the claimant has been able to prove that he suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of truck in question. The reliance of the claimant is upon his testimony as well as testimony of Sohan Singh PW-2. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that claimant as well as Sohan Singh PW-2 have supported the claim of the appellant on all material particulars. It is further contended that in the medical record, it is mentioned that claimant has suffered injuries due to accident with tractor. So, that evidence is the corroborative evidence. Recording of FIR or DDR is not the conditional precedent to file the claim petition. There is no reasoning for the claimant to file false claim against the respondents. 12. To support this contention learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon following authorities : - 1. Ashok Kumar Sachdeva vs. Harish Malik reported in, [2007(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2900] : 2 007 (4) RCR (Civil) page 311 ; 2. Yashwant Singh Baghel & Anr. vs. Shiv Prasad Vishwakarma & Ors III (2007) ACC page 442 ; 3. Brestu Ram vs. Anant Ram and others 1990 ACJ page 333 ; 4. Meenakshamma vs. B.Hanumanthappa and another 1996 ACJ 914 ; 5. Yashwant Singh Baghel & Anr. vs. Shiv Prasad Vishwakarma & Ors III (2007) ACC page 442 ; 3. Brestu Ram vs. Anant Ram and others 1990 ACJ page 333 ; 4. Meenakshamma vs. B.Hanumanthappa and another 1996 ACJ 914 ; 5. Reeta Kapoor and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others reported as 1996 ACJ page 917 ; and 6. Charanjit Kaur and others vs. Prem Singh and others 2 007 ( 2) PLR page 545 ; 13. In reply to the above noted submission, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the Award. It is contended that according to the case of the claimant Kulwant Singh was driving the scooter. Said Kulwant Singh has not been examined as a witness nor arrayed as respondent. Sohan Singh is a relative of the claimant. Claimant stated a lie in the Court and stated that Sohan Singh is not related to him, however, Sohan Singh while appearing as a witness of the claimant has stated that Ajmer Singh is his real brother and daughter of the claimant is married to son of said Ajmer Singh. It is further stated that occurrence has taken place on 14.9.1991 and claim petition was filed on 27.7.1992 more than ten months of the occurrence had passed, no complaint was made to any authority for not registering the case. The claimant has not produced any evidence that there was damage to the tractor. The claim petition has been preferred only due to enmity as stated in the written reply. It is submitted that authorities relied upon by counsel for the claimant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. So far as authorities Ashok Kumar Sachdeva’s case (supra), Yashwant Singh Baghel & Anr’s case (supra) ; Brestu Ram’s case (supra) ; Meenakshamma’s case (supra) ; Reeta Kapoor and others’ case (supra) and Charanjit Kaur and others’ case (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the appellant are concerned, in all these authorities, it has been laid down that registration of the FIR or DDR is not a conditional precedence to prove the negligence. However, in authority Yashwant Singh Baghel & Anr’s case (supra), Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has rightly held that each case has to be decided on the appreciation of its own pleading, circumstantial evidence recorded in that claim petition. The facts of two cases cannot be the same. 15. However, in authority Yashwant Singh Baghel & Anr’s case (supra), Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has rightly held that each case has to be decided on the appreciation of its own pleading, circumstantial evidence recorded in that claim petition. The facts of two cases cannot be the same. 15. Admittedly, till the filing of the claim petition, the claimant has not raised any little finger against the respondent. No complaint was made to any authority regarding accident or involvement of Paramjit Singh in the accident. The claimant has stated a wrong fact in the Court that Sohan Singh is not related to him. Sohan Singh while appearing as PW-2 has categorically stated that Ajmer Singh is his brother and daughter of claimant is married to son of said Ajmer Singh. 16. To get the compensation in a motor vehicular accident, the first conditional precedence is that the claimant has to prove the fact that he has received injuries in a motor vehicular accident and that the respondent was driving the said vehicle at the relevant time. 17. From the perusal of Ex.P-2 it can be only inferred that claimant received injuries in motor vehicular accident but it is not proved that the claimant has received injuries by the use of offending vehicle. 18. Kulwant Singth could be the best witness as according to the claimant he also received injuries in the occurrence but he has not been examined by the claimant. The claimant is a Teacher and he knows the importance of lodging the FIR or reporting the matter to the police. The claimant has not cared to prove the fact that vehicle of respondent was damaged and as such he is unable to prove that tractor No.HRX-4309 is the offending vehicle. No doubt, the claimant has suffered permanent disability in the accident but he could have send any other person for lodging the FIR for reporting the matter to the police. Atleast Kulwant Singh, the injured person could have lodged the FIR or could lodge the report to the police about the occurrence. The occurrence, according to the claimant has taken place on 14.9.1991 and till 27.7.1992 the claimant has not raised any little finger against the respondent. Name of Sohan Singh is not mentioned in the claim petition although the same was filed after so many months after the occurrence. 19. The occurrence, according to the claimant has taken place on 14.9.1991 and till 27.7.1992 the claimant has not raised any little finger against the respondent. Name of Sohan Singh is not mentioned in the claim petition although the same was filed after so many months after the occurrence. 19. So, on re-appreciation of the evidence, the finding of Tribunal on issue No.1 does not call for any interference. 20. In view of my finding on issue No.1, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. 21. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ---------0.B.S.0------------