Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1100 (PNJ)

SUMITRA v. CHHOTU RAM

2013-08-19

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2013
JUDGMENT : VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. 1. This is an appeal brought by the claimants challenging the award dated 11.2.2009. Vide the impugned award, learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Sirsa (for short, "the Tribunal") has dismissed the claim petition of Smt. Chander Kala and others. Learned Tribunal recorded the finding on issue No. 1 to the effect that the claimants have failed to prove the accident to have been the outcome of rash and negligent driving of Maruti car bearing registration No. HR-29G-8850 by respondent No. 1. In view of this finding, it was found that the claimants are not entitled to any amount as compensation and, consequently, their claim petition has been dismissed with no order as to costs. On 5.7.2006, Sohan Lal [since deceased] alongwith one Ramesh Kumar was coining from his fields. At about 9.00 PM, a Maruti car bearing registration No. HR-29G-8850 came from the side of Sirsa. It was driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. It had hit Sohan Lal, as a result of which, Sohan Lal suffered many injuries on his body. He was, though, brought to General Hospital, Sirsa and was advised to be taken to PGI, Rohtak, but due to his serious condition, he was taken to Metro Hospital, Hisar where he died on 8.7.2006. The occurrence was seen by Ramesh Kumar. He also lodged a report with the police regarding this accident and respondent No. 1 is facing trial in the criminal case registered against him. 2. The accident is denied by the respondents to have occurred in the manner alleged by the claimants. Respondent No. 1 has denied that he was driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident. He has claimed himself to be falsely implicated. The other averments are also denied and the claim petition is prayed to be dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the accident took place on 5.7.2006. According to him, Sohan Lal died on 8.7.2006 and the FIR was registered on 9.7.2006, According to him, the accident was witnessed by Ramesh Kumar and Jagdish. He has submitted that Ramesh Kumar had died before he could be examined in the case and, therefore, Jagdish was examined as PW-2. According to him, Sohan Lal died on 8.7.2006 and the FIR was registered on 9.7.2006, According to him, the accident was witnessed by Ramesh Kumar and Jagdish. He has submitted that Ramesh Kumar had died before he could be examined in the case and, therefore, Jagdish was examined as PW-2. He has submitted that for the only reason that he is the real uncle of deceased Sohan Lal, his statement has been discarded by learned Tribunal. He has submitted that the statement of Jagdish is reliable and placing reliance on the same, issue No. 1 should have been decided in favour of the claimants. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted, on the other hand, that there is nothing on the record to suggest that Ramesh Kumar has died and that he has not been withheld by the claimants in order to bring on record the statement of an interested person. According to them, the FIR has been lodged after four days of the accident after due deliberations. According to them, if the vehicle would have been left by respondent No. 1 at the spot and he had escaped without the same, the police should have recovered that vehicle from the spot which has not been done in this case. They have submitted that learned Tribunal has taken the most appropriate view on the evidence and the finding of learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 cannot be disturbed. 5. The FIR speaks about the accident having been seen by Ramesh Kumar. Nothing is mentioned therein that Jagdish was also there at the spot and he saw the accident. Jagdish is, moreover, real uncle of the deceased, Jagdish being real uncle should have approached the police and lodged a report with it soon after the incident if he had seen the accident. After four days of the accident, the report was lodged by Ramesh Kumar. Without bringing any evidence to the effect that said Ramesh Kumar has died and is not available for being put in the witness box, he has been withheld and in his place, Jagdish, whose name does not appear in the FIR is put in the witness box as an eye witness of the occurrence. His relationship with the deceased is the very circumstance that goes against the credibility of his statement. His relationship with the deceased is the very circumstance that goes against the credibility of his statement. The other circumstance that takes away the charm from the statement of Jagdish is that no vehicle was recovered from the spot by the police. Had the accident taken place in the manner alleged by the claimants, the vehicle should have been there at the spot and should have been taken into possession by the police which was not done in this case. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal has rightly reached the conclusion that there is no reliable evidence on the record to prove that the accident is the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No. HR-29G-8850 by respondent No. 1. Affirming the finding of learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 and finding no merit, in the appeal, I dismiss the same.