Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 89 (PNJ)

Sukhchain Singh v. Mohan Singh alias Mohini

2012-01-17

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.: (Oral) - The owner has preferred this appeal against the impugned Award dated 22.11.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur, whereby the appellant has been held liable to satisfy the award. 2. The brief facts of the case in hand are that the injured claimant, Mohan Singh, aged 29 years, was going to his village Sanghala, on a motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-28-4359 along with his wife, Paramjit Kaur, who was a pillion. At about 8.00 p.m. when they crossed the Nabha Paper Mill, a Tata Indica car beairng registration No.HR-03E-6630, being owned and driven by the appellant herein, came from the opposite side and struck against the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result of the accident, Paramjit Kaur was thrown on the Kacha portion of the road whereas the claimant sustained multiple injuries. After causing the accident, the driver-appellant fled from the spot. An FIR No.107 dated 21.4.2009 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC was registered at Police Station City Malerkotla. 3. In this background, the claimant preferred claim petition before the learned Tribunal whereby an amount of Rs.1,07,289/- was awarded to him and the appellant herein was held liable to satisfy the Award. Hence the present appeal. 4. The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the FIR in question was registered by the claimant in connivance with the Police authorities. It is contended that there is no eyewitness to the accident and the testimony of the claimant, who himself is an interested witness, cannot be considered. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 6. The appellant Sukhchain Singh, appeared as RW1, and admitted the fact of registration of FIR, Ex.PH against him. He also admitted that he was being tried in the Court of learned JMIC, Malerkotla with regard to the said FIR. Mere submission that the FIR is a result of the connivance between the claimant and the Police authorities cannot be accepted. No representation was moved by the appellant to the higher authorities alleging the connivance. He has also failed to prove any previous enmity between the parties. Mere submission that the FIR is a result of the connivance between the claimant and the Police authorities cannot be accepted. No representation was moved by the appellant to the higher authorities alleging the connivance. He has also failed to prove any previous enmity between the parties. In the absence thereof, the fact of registration of the FIR against the appellant and his silence in the matter is sufficient to conclude that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver-appellant. No other point has been raised. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is a small farmer and currently under debt. He is not in a position to satisfy the Award in one go, and therefore, he prays for liberty to pay the amount of compensation in instalments. 8. In view of the above, the liberty is granted to the appellant to deposit the amount in three equal monthly instalments which shall become due on 01.03.2012, 01.04.2012 and 01.05.2012, respectively. It is made clear that if the appellant fails to deposit any of the instalments within the prescribed time, the entire amount will become payable in lump sum. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed in limine with the aforesaid liberty. ------------------