Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2202 (HP)

Mohan Singh v. Sukhwinder Kumar

2016-10-07

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 17th August, 2011, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Una, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant was dismissed, (for short, the impugned award). 2. Claimant had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for shot, the Act), seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15.00 lacs, on the grounds taken in the memo of claim petition. 3. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents by filing replies. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the petitioner suffered the injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of Pick Up Van 207 bearing registration No. PB-08AN-7851 by the driver/respondent Shri Sukhwinder Kumar as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as claimed. If so, its quantum and from whom? OP Parties 3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding and possessing a valid license to drive the vehicle. If so, its effect? OPR-3 4. Whether the Pick Up Van was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as alleged, if so, its effect? OPR-3 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR-3 6. Whether the petition is collusive as alleged? OPR-3 7. Relief.” 5. The claimant, in order to prove his case, has examined PW-1 Anil Kumar and PW-3 Dr.Savinder Kumar Hans, while the claimant himself stepped into the witness box as PW-2. On the other hand, the driver of the offending vehicle appeared before the Tribunal as RW-1. 6. The Tribunal after examining the pleadings of the parties and the evidence has come to the conclusion that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Van i.e. respondent No.1, but the claimant himself was rash and negligent and had caused the accident. 7. 6. The Tribunal after examining the pleadings of the parties and the evidence has come to the conclusion that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Van i.e. respondent No.1, but the claimant himself was rash and negligent and had caused the accident. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that though, in regard to the accident, FIR was registered against the claimant and challan was presented before the court of Judicial Magistrate under Sections 279 and 337 Indian Penal Code, however, after trial, the claimant has been acquitted. Thus, on the strength of this judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant has already been acquitted by the court of competent jurisdiction and such acquittal is conclusive proof that the claimant himself had not driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the relevant point of time. The learned counsel for the appellant filed across the board a photocopy of the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. III, Una, H.P., dated 8th July, 2013, made part of the file. 8. A perusal of the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate shows that the claimant has been acquitted of the offence as the prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 31 of the said judgment hereunder: “31. After going through the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of evidence on record and arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that prosecution remained unable to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt. In the light of such, benefit of doubt is extended the accused and hence, these points are decided against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.” 9. The Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the claimant of the offences by extending benefit of doubt. Thus, no benefit can be derived by the claimant by relying upon the said judgment. 10. The Tribunal has discussed all the facts and rightly came to the conclusion that the deceased himself had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and had caused the accident. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 14 of the impugned award hereunder: “14. Thus, no benefit can be derived by the claimant by relying upon the said judgment. 10. The Tribunal has discussed all the facts and rightly came to the conclusion that the deceased himself had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and had caused the accident. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 14 of the impugned award hereunder: “14. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner is a local man, whereas, the respondents No.1 & 2 hail from the adjoining State of Punjab. Therefore, the possibility of the police registering a false F.I.R. against the petitioner after joining hands with his opponents is very remote. It appears to me that the petitioner is telling nothing except a bundle of lies to grab the compensation money despite the fact that he himself is/was a wrong doer.” 11. Having said so, it is held that the impugned award is well reasoned, needs no interference. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.