Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 877 (HP)

ANIL GARG v. ANURADHAS

2013-10-04

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. Claimant Anil Garg (appellant herein) has filed the instant appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 26.11.2012, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur at Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., in MAC Petition No.45-N/2 of 2008, whereby claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation, stands rejected. 2. As per the claimant, on 26.1.2008, he was travelling in a Maruti Car bearing Registration No.HP-03- 4344, owned by Smt. Anuradha (respondent No.1) and driven by Kapil Garg (respondent No. 2). When they reached near village Hamidpur, the Car collided with a trolley loaded with grass. As a result of the accident, claimant sustained multiple injuries. While admitting occurrence of the accident, respondents denied negligence on their part. 3. Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in an accident which was the result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 2, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-3 4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3 5. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with the respondents No. 1 & 2? OPR-3 6. Relief. 4. Appreciating the testimony of witnesses, claim petition was dismissed, for the reason that claimant failed to prove any rash or negligent act and conduct on the part of driver of the vehicle, i.e. Car. 5. Significantly, claimant has not disclosed the identity of the trolley, with which the Car collided. Owner and the driver of the said vehicle has also not been arrayed as parties. Claimant, respondent No.1 and respondent No. 2 are close relatives. It appears that petition, being collusive in nature, was filed only to seek compensation from the insurer. 6. Tribunal, after appreciating the testimony of the relevant witnesses, rightly came to the conclusion that claimant failed to prove and establish the fact that the vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 2, in a rash and negligent manner. The alleged accident took place on 26.1.2008. Claimant remained admitted in the Hospital from 27.1.2008 till 2.2.1008. 6. Tribunal, after appreciating the testimony of the relevant witnesses, rightly came to the conclusion that claimant failed to prove and establish the fact that the vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 2, in a rash and negligent manner. The alleged accident took place on 26.1.2008. Claimant remained admitted in the Hospital from 27.1.2008 till 2.2.1008. It is only thereafter that report was lodged at Police Station Naraingarh on 24.2.2008. This report was lodged not by the claimant, but by respondent No. 2. It be only observed that even in the said report, there is no reference of occurrence of the accident on account of negligence of respondent No. 2. 7. During trial, it had come in the notice of the claimant, which fact is evident from the testimony of Kapil Garg (RW-1), that fault was that of driver of tractor-trolley. If that be so, then why is it that claimant did not take any effective steps of impleading such a person as party respondent. 8. For all the aforesaid reasons, there is nothing on record, warranting interference with the impugned award, which cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.