Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1349 (PNJ)

Charan Singh v. Sanjay Kumar

2015-07-29

SHEKHER DHAWAN

body2015
JUDGMENT Mr. Shekher Dhawan, J.:- Claimants have challenged the award dated 05.01.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred as ‘The Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition filed by claimants was dismissed. 2. Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of the appeal. That on 4.7.2008 at about 5 p.m., Pawan @ Monu was going with his friend Charan Singh on motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-16C-6114. The said motor cycle was being driven by Pawan and Charan Singh was pillion rider. When they reached near village Biran, truck bearing registration No. HR61- 6984 came from back side. The said truck was being driven by Sanjay in rash and negligent manner and struck against the motor cycle from the back side. Resultantly, Charan Singh fell down on the ground and truck ran over the motor cycle and also ran over the right leg below knee of Pawan Kumar and both the legs of Charan Singh crushed. The driver of the truck fled away after causing the accident. The matter was reported to the police. 3. Respondents contested the claim petition on all counts. ‘The Tribunal’ after appreciating the material and evidence available on file, returned the findings that the petitioner failed to prove that accident was caused by respondent No.1 Sanjay Kumar on 04.07.2008 while driving truck bearing registration No. HR61-6984 in rash and negligent manner with motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-16C-6114. Resultantly claim petition was dismissed. 4. Being aggrieved of the same, claimant-appellant is before this Court by way of the present appeal. 5. At the time of argument learned counsel for the appellant took the plea that the Tribunal completely ignored the fact that there was no dispute that accident had taken place involving truck bearing registration No. HR61-6984 and motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-16C-6114. The matter was immediately reported to the police vide FIR. The Tribunal has simply accepted the plea that accused was acquitted in a criminal case. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents took the plea that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition as onus to prove rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 was upon the claimant and claimant failed to discharge the same. The driver did not make any supplementary statement. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents took the plea that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition as onus to prove rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 was upon the claimant and claimant failed to discharge the same. The driver did not make any supplementary statement. Charan Singh and Pawan were not unconscious but their statements were not recorded by the police and the entire case as set up in the FIR was based on concocted facts. The driver was acquitted after trial in criminal case and the present appeal is without any merit and the same be dismissed. 7. In support of his argument learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company has placed reliance on co-ordinate Bench judgments of this Court in cases Mahipal vs. Harjeet Singh and others, 2014(4) Law Herald 3349, Geeta Devi and others vs. Ravinder Kumar and others, 2013 (4) Law Herald 3138, Amar Singh and another vs. Natha Ram and others, 2007(3) TAC 221 and Ram Karan vs. Zile Singh, 2001(3) RCR (Civil) 582 wherein such a view was taken. 8. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the observations made by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, this Court is of the considered view that most of the facts are not disputed in this case. The accident had taken place on 04.07.2008 involving truck-Dumper bearing registration No. HR61-6984 and motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-16C-6114. The matter was reported to the police vide FIR dated 4.7.2008 (Ex.P-5). The authenticity of document Ex. P-5 cannot be challenged mainly on the ground because FIR was recorded on the basis of a telephonic message received from General Hospital, Police Post Bhiwani, with regard to admission of Pawan @ Monu and Charan Singh in Civil Hospital, Bhiwani after receiving injuries in road side accident. The Investigating Officer had gone to the General Hospital, Bhiwani after obtaining medical ruqa and MLR. Thereafter opinion of the doctor was sought. As per opinion of the doctor attending to the injured, the injured were reported to be unfit to make statement. The Investigating Officer had again visited the General Hospital, Bhiwani on 5.7.2008 and sought the opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of injured. Injured Pawan was reported to be fit to make statement, whereas Charan Singh injured was referred to PGIMS Rohtak. The Investigating Officer had again visited the General Hospital, Bhiwani on 5.7.2008 and sought the opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of injured. Injured Pawan was reported to be fit to make statement, whereas Charan Singh injured was referred to PGIMS Rohtak. FIR was recorded on the basis of statement of Pawan injured on 5.7.2008. All these documents cannot be said to be forged as same were prepared by Public Servants ini discharge of their official duties. 9. The Tribunal has taken the view that there were material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, if the same are scrutinized minutely. However, in fact there are no contradictions on the material points. More so, there cannot be statement of witnesses on doted line. Decision of such a case is based on documentary evidence only and those documents are prepared by the Public Servants in the discharge of their official duties in this case. FIR (Ex.P-5) cannot be thrown away in this case. Similarly, Ex.P-1, copy of MLR of Charan Singh and subsequent record prepared by the Hospital whereby Charan Singh was referred to PGIMER, having serious injuries, cannot be said to be manipulated. Pawan had sustained minor injuries so he was declared fit to make statement on 5.7.2008. But Charan Singh was declared unfit to make statement by the Doctor as such his statement was not recorded. The Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petition on the ground that respondent No.1 Sanjay Kumar who was facing trial, was acquitted. The acquittal in criminal case has no bearing on the decision of accident claim petition. Such a view was taken by coordinate Bench of this Court in Harbans Lal and others vs. Shingara Singh and others, 2014(2) R.C.R (Civil) 570 and Baldev Singh and another vs. Manjit Kaur and others 2014(4)AICJ 90. 10. To the contrary the claimant’s version has been proved on the basis of Statement of Charan Singh claimant who appeared as PW-2 that he had sustained injuries. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant had to spend a sum of Rs 1,00,000/- on medical expenses as per record available on file. To the contrary the claimant’s version has been proved on the basis of Statement of Charan Singh claimant who appeared as PW-2 that he had sustained injuries. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant had to spend a sum of Rs 1,00,000/- on medical expenses as per record available on file. Apart from that, ‘the Tribunal’ has not awarded any amount on account of pain and suffering, special diet, transportation charges, loss of income despite the fact that the appellant had been shifted to a distant place from his place of residence i.e. village Riwasa, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani to PGIMS, Rohtak. Such accident resulted into lot of pain and sufferings for the injured as well as his family members, who must had been attending to him. Accordingly, the appellant is certainly entitled to receive amount of compensation under the following heads :- (i) Loss of income Rs. 50,000/- (ii) Medical expenses Rs.1,00,000/- (iii) Attendant charges, special diet and transportation Rs.10,000/- (iv) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- (v) Loss on account of 19% permanent disability Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.2,60,000/- 12. The total amount of compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- shall be payable to the petitioner-appellant from the date of filing of the claim petition along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition. 13. Accordingly, the present appeal is accepted partly. ------------------