Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1240 (HP)

Nirmala Devi v. Daya Ram

2016-07-01

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 4-insurer stated at the Bar that his client has shown inability to pay Rs. 50,000/- under the head ‘no fault liability’ as per the mandate of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and prayed that the appeal be heard and decided on merits. 2. Heard. 3. This appeal is directed against the award dated 27th December, 2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. Petition No. 12 of 2004, titled as Smt. Nirmala Devi versus Daya Ram & others, whereby the claim petition came to be dismissed (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’). 4. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition on the ground that deceased Jagtar Singh was negligent while driving scooter bearing registration No. HP-20-B-1585. 5. The Tribunal has made discussions relating to Issue No. 1 in paras 9 to 15 of the impugned award, which are legally correct. 6. A.S.I., Sukh Lal (RW-2) has conducted the investigation. He has stated that the accident is outcome of rash and negligent driving of deceased Jagtar Singh. 7. Having said so, it can safely be held that the Tribunal has rightly made discussion in para-14 of the impugned award. It is apt to reproduce the said para of the impugned award herein:- “ASI Sukhlal (RW 2), then investigator, Police Station, Una, claims to have investigated the case related to the FIR aforementioned. On investigation, what he observed was that the scooterist Jagtar Singh had after overtaking a stationary bus, which was on its way towards Amb struck the scooter against the truck after swerving to the wrong side of the road. Claiming to have recorded Som Nath’s statement under section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext.RW2/A, Sukhlal further maintained that according to his investigations and the statements of the witnesses, there was no fault on the part of the truck driver. According to him, he had prepared a site plan Ext.RW2/C in accordance with the spot position. During cross-examination, he maintained that there was blood at point ‘A’. In the site plan Ext.RW2/C, this point is shown to be the place of accident, which is 3 ft. from the eastern extremity of the metalled portion of the road and 21 ft. from the western edge thereof. During cross-examination, he maintained that there was blood at point ‘A’. In the site plan Ext.RW2/C, this point is shown to be the place of accident, which is 3 ft. from the eastern extremity of the metalled portion of the road and 21 ft. from the western edge thereof. Thus, it is manifest from the location of the point of accident that the truck, which was on its way towards Una, was moving on the left side of the road, and the scooter emerged in front of it after swerving to its right side. This position lends assurance only to the respondent 1 and 2’s claim that it was in fact the scooterist who while trying to overtake a private bus suddenly appeared in front of the truck and struck the scooter against it. The accident is therefore attributable to rashness and negligence of the scooterist and the petitioner’s allegation that the respondent 2 was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner is nothing but a myth.” 8. Viewed thus, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 9. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal’s file.