Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1458 (HP)

Vikram Chand v. Bidhi Chand

2015-10-09

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) This appeal is directed against the award, dated 29th February, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, (for short, the Tribunal) in M.A.C. Case No.107 of 2004, titled Vikram Chand and another vs. Bidhi Chand and others, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants (appellants herein) came to be dismissed, (for short, the impugned award). 2. The precise case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that the driver of truck bearing No.HP-22-4666, namely, Raj Kumar, (original respondent No.2), had driven the said truck rashly and negligently on the night intervening 12/13.12.2003, at about 12.35 A.M., and hit the scooter bearing registration No.CH-01A-3918, being driven by Manmohan, near I.P.H. Office on NH-21, as a result of which the said Manmohan sustained injuries and lateron succumbed to the same. Thus, the claimants, being the widow and the son of the deceased, had filed the Claim Petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.25.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents, by filing replies. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: “1. Whether Manmohan alias Goldy has died in an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, driver of truck No.HP-22-4666? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties? OPR 4. Whether respondent No.2 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effect? OPR-3 5. Whether respondent No.2 was plying the vehicle without valid documents i.e. R.C., R.P., fitness certificate and valid insurance, as alleged? OPR-3. 6. Whether the accident took place due to the contributory negligence on the part of respondent No.2 and deceased person? OPR-3. 7. Relief.” 4. Parties led evidence. The Tribunal, after examining the evidence, decided Issues No.1 and 6 against the claimants and has not returned findings on issue No.2. The Tribunal has also decided issues No.3 to 5 in the negative. I wonder why the Tribunal has returned findings on issues No.3 to 5 since these issues were to be decided only in case issues No.1 and 6 had gone in favour of the claimants. 5. The Tribunal has also decided issues No.3 to 5 in the negative. I wonder why the Tribunal has returned findings on issues No.3 to 5 since these issues were to be decided only in case issues No.1 and 6 had gone in favour of the claimants. 5. The Tribunal has discussed the entire evidence in the impugned award, in paragraphs No.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, and decided issues No.1 and 6 against the claimants. 6. I have gone through the pleadings and the evidence and am of the considered view that the claimants have failed to prove that original respondent No.2 i.e. driver of the truck, namely Raj Kumar, had driven the truck, in question, rashly and negligently on the fateful day and caused the accident. 7. In fact, in regard to the accident, an FIR bearing registration No.399 of 2003 (Ext.PW-3/A) was registered on 13th December, 2003, at Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur, against the deceased Manmohan Singh and the said FIR was closed as untraced, as per the order, dated 29th June, 2005, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, (Ext.RW-1/A). 8. Thus, the only inference which can be drawn is that the claimants have not been able to prove that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck driver, namely, Raj Kumar. Therefore, the findings returned by the Tribunal merit to be upheld and the same are upheld. As a consequence, the appeal is dismissed, alongwith pending CMPs, if any.