Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1544 (HP)

Union of India v. Kinnaur Federation

2015-10-16

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 20th September, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. petition No.30 of 2002, titled Union of India & others vs. M/s Kinnaur Federation & others, whereby the Claim Petition came to be dismissed, (for short, the “impugned award”). Brief facts: 2. Appellants-claimants filed a Claim Petition on 24th May, 2002 and sought compensation to the tune of Rs.83,55,486/-, as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition. It is averred by the claimants that claimants No.2 and 3 were engaged in the maintenance and upkeep of Border Road National Highway-22 from Wangtu to Powari and had constructed 200 feet span, double reinforced bailey bridge, named Kharo, in January, 2001, on Satluj river. It was further averred that Rs.85.00 lacs were spent on the construction of the said bridge, which was catering to the needs of the armed forces and civil administration. Unfortunately, on 6th January, 2002, at 5.30 p.m., a loaded truck bearing registration No.HP-25-0290, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, respondent No.2 Ravinder Singh, while crossing the said bridge, struck with the last panel of the bridge, due to which the bridge collapsed, constraining the claimants to construct a diversion road, by raising retaining structures etc. Thus, it was claimed that the claimants suffered loss to the tune of Rs.83,55,486/- due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck driver aforesaid. 3. Respondents contested the claim petition and filed the replies. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the property of the petitioner was damaged due to rash and negligent act of the respondent No.2 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation and from who are the petitioners entitled to? OPP 3. Whether the accident was caused due to negligent act of the petitioner No.3 as alleged in preliminary objection No1. If so, its effect? OPR-1 & 2. 4. Whether the petitioner has not been filed by the competent person as alleged, if so, its effect? OPR 1 & 2. 5. Whether respondent No.3 is not liable to indemnify the insured as alleged, if so its effect? OPR-3. 6. If so, its effect? OPR-1 & 2. 4. Whether the petitioner has not been filed by the competent person as alleged, if so, its effect? OPR 1 & 2. 5. Whether respondent No.3 is not liable to indemnify the insured as alleged, if so its effect? OPR-3. 6. Whether the present petition is maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPR-3. 7. Relief.” 4. Claimants have examined as many as seven witnesses, namely, Sohan Lal, M.P. Singh, K.P.R. Singh, Sunil Chand Shrivastava, S.K. Sarkar, R.S. Malik and Anand Yadav (PW-1 to PW-7, respectively). The respondents have also examined ten witnesses, i.e. Surat Ram, Chet Ram, Ajit Ram, Kashmir Singh, Ravinder Singh, Chhering Ram, Hukam Singh, R.K. Sharma, Bhinder Singh and V.K. Aggarwal. Parties have also placed on record documents, the mention of which has been made in the impugned award. 5. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings of the parties and the evidence, held that the claimants have failed to prove that the driver of the offending truck was driving the said truck rashly and negligently and there was any negligence on his part. 6. I have gone through the impugned award and the material placed on the record. The impugned award is well reasoned. I do not want to load the judgment by referring to the evidence led by the parties, in detail, which has been discussed by the Tribunal at length in the impugned award in paragraphs 9 to 21. 7. The claimants have failed to plead and prove that the truck was being driven at a higher speed or rashly and negligently. There is no averment in the Claim Petition, what to speak of evidence, to show that the driver had driven the offending truck rashly and negligently at a high speed while crossing the bridge. On the contrary, there is sufficient evidence on the file which does disclose that the driver was crossing the bridge with normal speed and the bridge collapsed. 8. In this regard, the Tribunal has made discussion in paragraphs 23 to 25 of the impugned award, which are reproduced below: “23. The case of the petitioners makes it evident that it was not their case that the driver of truck No.HP-25-0290 was driving the truck on the bridge at a high speed so as to establish that on account of such rash driving, the bridge collapsed. Sh. The case of the petitioners makes it evident that it was not their case that the driver of truck No.HP-25-0290 was driving the truck on the bridge at a high speed so as to establish that on account of such rash driving, the bridge collapsed. Sh. Anand Yadav labourer has also not testified that the respondent No.2 was driving the truck at an excessive speed and thereby endangered the bridge and it collapsed. This makes it evident that it is not established that the drive was driving the truck No.HP-25-0290 rashly and on account of such driving the bridge collapsed. 24. The driving of truck No.HP-25-0290 negligently by respondent No.2 also does not stand substantiated. Sh. M.P. Singh who was posted as Executive Engineer GREF at Delhi was not present at the occurrence site and could not have seen the manner in which the truck was being driven nor he could have noticed that the truck was being driven negligently. The testimony of this witness that the bridge collapsed due to the negligence of the drive of the truck in such circumstances is of no avail. Sh. K.P.R. Singh PW-3 was not present at the time of the accident nor has inspected the site personally and as such his testimony that the truck struck against the right side of the bridge cannot be relied upon. 25. Sh. Anand Yadav who was working as a labourer with GREF P.W.7 has testified that the truck had struck against the panel of the right side of the bridge and on account of such driving the bridge collapsed and the truck also fell down. The bridge collapsed due to the negligence of the driver of the truck. He in cross-examination testified that the panel of the bridge had got bent and the panel was double panel with height of 8 feet. The respondents have not deposed that any such bent panel was noticed by any of the officers at the spot. The bridge was bailey bridge and the photographs make it evident that the bridge was hanging and as such the respondents could have easily retrieved the bent panel. There is nothing to suggest that any such panel of the right side was found bent by any body. The bridge was bailey bridge and the photographs make it evident that the bridge was hanging and as such the respondents could have easily retrieved the bent panel. There is nothing to suggest that any such panel of the right side was found bent by any body. Therefore, his testimony that the panel on the right side had bent due to strike of the truck does not appear to be gospel truth and sole testimony of this witness about the manner of the accident is not above board and cannot be relied upon to hold that the accident was caused on account of negligent driving.” 9. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are borne out from the records. The claimants have failed to prove that the driver had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and that was the cause of collapsing of the bridge in question. There is nothing on the file which can be made basis that the maintenance of the bridge was carried out after the bridge was constructed in the year 2001. The bridge in question was on the National Highway and considerable number of vehicles (loaded/unloaded) would have been crossing the said bridge day in and day out. There is nothing on the file which is suggestive of the fact that the respondents had placed any cautionary boards on the entry points of the bridge regarding the speed limit to be maintained during the crossing of the bridge or about the load bearing capacity of the bridge. The claimants or the State Authorities had not deployed any police official to check the vehicles crossing the bridge. Regarding this, the Tribunal has made detailed discussion in paragraphs 26 to 29 of the impugned award. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants was asked to show from the record that the damage was caused to the bridge in question due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. The learned counsel for the appellants was not able to show that the driver had driven the offending truck rashly and negligently. He was also not in a position to show that the bridge was manned by the police officials on both entry points. 11. Having said so, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 merit to be upheld and the same are upheld. He was also not in a position to show that the bridge was manned by the police officials on both entry points. 11. Having said so, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 merit to be upheld and the same are upheld. It is immaterial to discuss the other issues, since the remaining issues flow from issue No.1. 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld.