Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 579 (PNJ)

Naresh Kumar v. Majidan

2014-03-20

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT JITENDRA CHAUHAN,J. This appeal is filed by the owner Naresh Kumar challenging the impugned award dated 27.04.1999 by which the appellant owner and driver were held liable jointly and severally to pay the amount of compensation, absolving the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant owner argued that the appellant Naresh Kumar is owner of the offending truck No.HNG4353. The learned Tribunal has legally and factually committed grave error in fastening liability to pay the compensation upon the present appellant owner and the driver. He further argued that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the licence of the driver was found to be fake and the Insurance Company has been rightly absolved of its responsibility to pay the compensation. This Court has heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. While deciding issue No.1 that is regarding accident, the learned Tribunal has came to the conclusion that Ali Mohammad had died as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck No. HNG4353 by its driver Mehardeen. There is no flaw in these findings. The driver is being prosecuted under Section 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No.155 dated 06.07.1996 at Police Station Tauru. This fact has been proved by Kailash Singh, Criminal Ahlmad (PW2) of the Court, on the basis of judicial file in which the driver Mehar Khan S/o Rahim Khan is being prosecuted. In his statement Mehar Khan, the driver himself admitted his presence along with offending truck on the spot but stated that he was beaten by the mob and falsely implicated in this case. Strangely, this plea is missing, in the written statement filed by the driver in the claim petition. So this story is an after thought. Now adverting to Issue No.3, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver did not hold a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. This finding is based upon the statement of RW1 Yudhishter Kumar, Licence Clerk, SDM Office, Gurgaon which reads as under: “I have brought the summoned record pertaining to driving licence No.1476/93 in the name of Sh. Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Dharambir, resident of 421/16, Civil Lines, Gurgaon. This finding is based upon the statement of RW1 Yudhishter Kumar, Licence Clerk, SDM Office, Gurgaon which reads as under: “I have brought the summoned record pertaining to driving licence No.1476/93 in the name of Sh. Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Dharambir, resident of 421/16, Civil Lines, Gurgaon. This licence was issued on 16.06.1993 and this licence is valid upto 14.06.1998. He is authorized to drive motor cycle and scooter only. Again this licence was renewed upt 14.06.2003. This report has been issued by our office as per record, the signatures of Sh.Joginder Bhutani, Clerk of our office.” From the above statement, it is clear that the driving licence seized by the Police in criminal case was fake allegedly issued against entry No. 1476/93 dated 18.11.1993. The said driving licence was issued in the name of Vinod Kumar. The matter did not rest here. Finding himself in a difficult position on the statement of RW1 Yudhishter Kumar, the driver Mehar Khan took a U turn. While appearing as RW3 he changed his stand that he got issued the licence from the Regional Transport Authorities, Jaipur in the year 1988 and later on in the year 1991 he got it renewed from Gurgaon, which was a LMV and valid for further five years. In cross examination, he admitted that he never appeared before the RTA, Gurgaon and had got the endorsement added through someone. The latter plea taken by the driver is not supported by any documentary evidence. This is only oral assertion and even a photocopy of the such driving licence is not brought on record. After scrutinizing the entire evidence, the learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that the driving licence was a fake one. The finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.3 regarding fake driving licence is hereby affirmed. So as to quantum of compensation is concerned, there is no scope to interfere in these findings. Keeping in view the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed. The statutory amount of `25,000/deposited at the time of filing this appeal on 06.08.1999 be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement.