Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1856 (HP)

Atma Ram v. Veena Kumari

2016-09-02

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 4.10.2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur in MAC No. 58 of 2006, titled Atma Ram versus Smt. Veena Kumari and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby claim petition filed by the claimant came to be dismissed, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Claimant had filed the clam petition before the Tribunal for the grant of compensation as per the break-ups given in the claim petition which was resisted by the respondents and following issues came to be framed. (i) Whether the petitioner has sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 2 of Maruti Van No. 24-A-1257, as alleged? OPP (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP. (iii) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR-3. (iv) Whether the vehicle involved n the accident was being plied contrary to the provisions of the M.V. Act, if so, its effect? OPR-3. (v) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPRs. (vi) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties? OPRs. (vii) Relief. 3. Respondents have specifically pleaded that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving by the claimant himself who was driving the scooter and not by respondent No.2 Suraj Parkash who was driving Maruti Van No. HP-24-A-1275. 4. The parties have led evidence. The Tribunal in paras 11, 12 and 14 to 17 of the impugned award held that the accident was caused by the scooterist himself and was responsible for the same. It is also proved that the FIR was lodged against him, has faced the trial before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Tribunal after taking all these aspects in view held that the claimant has failed to prove that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving by driver Suraj Parkash who was driving Maruti Van No. HP-24-A-1275, but held that the accident was caused by scooterist, i.e., claimant himself, rashly and negligently. 5. The Tribunal after taking all these aspects in view held that the claimant has failed to prove that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving by driver Suraj Parkash who was driving Maruti Van No. HP-24-A-1275, but held that the accident was caused by scooterist, i.e., claimant himself, rashly and negligently. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal has fallen into an error in recording the said findings, as the scooterist, who faced the trial, has been acquitted by the Trial Court. He has made available the copy of judgment dated 15.12.2011 in police Challan No. 227- II/2004 titled State of H.P. versus Atma Ram, across the Board, made part of the file. The Trial Court has also recorded the findings against the accused. It is apt to reproduce para 19 of the said judgment herein. “19.Thus, though the factum of the accident is established on record, rashness and negligence on part of the accused in causing the accident has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, my findings on this point are in negative and against the prosecution.” 6. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt but at the same time has recorded the findings to the effect that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of the accused, i.e., scooterist. 7. Having said so, no interference is called for. The impugned award is upheld and appeal is dismissed. 8. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.