Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 997 (PNJ)

Ujjagar Singh v. Savitri Devi

2016-03-29

RITU BAHRI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, J. This order will dispose of FAO Nos.628 and 685 of 1997 together as both these appeals have arisen out of one accident as well as one Award. 2. FAO No.628 of 1997 has been filed by Ujjagar Singh-appellant (driver of offending vehicle) against the Award dated 04.11.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby compensation of Rs. 57,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 on account of death of Ashok Kumar in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 23.06.1991. Respondent No. 1 is widow and respondent Nos.2 to 5 are children of deceased Ashok Kumar. 3. On the other hand, FAO No.685 of 1997 has been filed by claimants-appellants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide aforesaid Award dated 04.11.1996. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.06.1991, at about 8.45 A.M., deceased-Ashok Kumar and his brother-Ved Parkash were going towards his office on G.T. Road, Bye Pass, Rajpura on their respective bicycles. Deceased was few steps ahead of his brother. When they had covered only 50/100 yards on the G.T. Road from their house, a car bearing registration No.CHA-2573 being driven by Ujjagar Singh came from Ludhiana side and struck against Ashok Kumar from behind, as a result of which, he (Ashok Kumar) received multiple injuries. After the accident, respondent No.1 stopped his car and with the help of Ved Parkash, took Ashok Kumar to Mittal Nursing Home, Rajpura, from where, he was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. Ashok Kumar remained admitted in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and later on, succumbed to his injuries. Consequently, the claimants-appellants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. 5. Upon notice, Ujaggar Singh filed written statement before the Tribunal, taking a plea that no FIR was lodged by the injured, who subsequently died. A compromise had been executed on 05.07.1991, according to which, Deepak Kumar Arora, owner of offending car, had paid compensation during the lifetime of Ashok Kumar. It was further stated that deceased-Ashok Kumar had thumbed marked the said agreement, which was signed by claimant No.1-Savitri Devi as well. Therefore, Savitri Devi was estopped from claiming any compensation on the basis of said compromise. 6. It was further stated that deceased-Ashok Kumar had thumbed marked the said agreement, which was signed by claimant No.1-Savitri Devi as well. Therefore, Savitri Devi was estopped from claiming any compensation on the basis of said compromise. 6. Insurance Company-respondent No.2 (before the Tribunal) filed a separate written statement, wherein it was alleged that the car bearing registration No. CHA-2573 was insured with the Insurance Company from 15.07.1991 to 14.07.1992 in the name of Ujaggar Singh son of Gurdit Singh. It was further stated that the claim petition had been filed in collusion with respondent Nos. 1 and 3 i.e. owner and driver. 7. Respondent No.3 also filed a separate written statement denying the allegations of the claimant. It was stated that Deepak Kumar Arora son of V.N. Arora, resident of House No.2233, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh, was the owner of offending car, which was handed over for the purpose of sale to Rachhpal Singh vide receipt dated 29.07.1990. Said Rachhpal Singh came to Deepak Arora and informed him that the vehicle was not transferred in the name of Gurbir Kaur and thereafter, he requested for another affidavit in favour of Ujaggar Singh. The possession of the said vehicle was with Rachhpal Singh. Ujaggar Singh got this vehicle insured with Insurance Company from 15.07.1991 to 14.07.1992. 8. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether Ashok Kumar died in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 23.06.1991 at about 8.45 A.M. near Bharat Colony, Bye Pass, Rajpura (Distt. Patiala), Punjab, on account of rash and negligent driving of car No. CHA-2573 by Ujaggar Singh-respondent No.1? OPA 2. To what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPA 3. Whether the present claim petition is barred by limitation? OPR-2 4. Whether the application is bad on account of conclusiveness between the claimants and respondent No.1? OPR-2 5. Relief. 9. The Tribunal had accepted the deposition of Ved Parkash (AW-1) that it was Ujaggar Singh, who was driving the offending car. During his cross-examination, he had admitted that a number of persons were proceeding on that road at that time. He further admitted that 5/7 persons were from the Mohalla and that he did not lodge any report regarding the accident. During his cross-examination, he had admitted that a number of persons were proceeding on that road at that time. He further admitted that 5/7 persons were from the Mohalla and that he did not lodge any report regarding the accident. Since Ved Parkash (AW-1) had no motive to depose falsely against Ujaggar Singh, coupled with the fact that Savitri Devi (AW-2) had stated that Ujaggar Singh was known to them earlier, their version was not disbelieved and it was held by the Tribunal that the accident took place when Ujaggar Singh was driving the offending car. He had purchased this car from Deepak Kumar Arora on 13.08.1991, but possession was delivered to him on 15.08.1991. After purchasing the car, he had deposited the token tax on 23.08.1991 for the period from 01.07.1991 to 30.06.1992. 10. The fact regarding compromise between Deepak Kumar Arora and Ashok Kumar-deceased finds mentioned in DDR No.6 dated 07.07.1991. The compromise dated 05.07.1991 was proved as Mark 'R' before the Tribunal. Deepak Kumar Arora had stated in his deposition that he did not make any payment of compensation to the injured-Ashok Kumar. Hence, in view of the statement of Deepak Arora, the compromise could not be read against the claimants. Deepak Arora further stated that he was owner of the car and had handed over possession of this car to Rachhpal Singh on 29.07.1990. Rachhpal Singh was doing the business of sale and purchase of vehicles at Chandigarh. This vehicle was sold to Gurbir Kaur on 13.09.1990. On the request of Rachhpal Singh, Deepak Arora executed another affidavit in favour of Ujaggar Singh. As per the version of Deepak Arora, only Ujaggar Singh was liable to make payment of compensation. 11. In the affidavit dated 13.09.1990, Ex.RW-3/B, executed by Deepak K. Arora in favour of Gurbir Kaur, he had given his consent for change of registration number in the name of purchaser of the vehicle. In the absence of any direct evidence, the Tribunal held that Deepak K. Arora was the owner of the vehicle up-till 13.08.1991 when the same was transferred to Ujaggar Singh by D.T.O., Patiala. Ujaggar Singh was held liable to make payment of compensation as he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. In the absence of any direct evidence, the Tribunal held that Deepak K. Arora was the owner of the vehicle up-till 13.08.1991 when the same was transferred to Ujaggar Singh by D.T.O., Patiala. Ujaggar Singh was held liable to make payment of compensation as he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. On the question of quantum of compensation, a finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that there was no direct evidence that Ujaggar Singh was negligent in driving the offending car. As per deposition of Ved Parkash (AW-1), when the accident had taken place, there were 5/7 persons present from the Mohalla. None of them appeared to depose with regard to the manner, in which the accident had taken place. The DDR was got registered by stating that a compromise had been taken place between the parties. But, as per the statement of Deepak K. Arora, even the plea of compromise could not be substantiated. 12. Apart from the testimony of Ved Parkash, there was no evidence to show that Ujaggar Singh was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner. Moreover, Ved Parkash (AW-1) had not lodged any complaint with regard to the accident. A DDR was got registered by someone else, that too with reference to a compromise. Even that testimony could not be substantiated after the testimony of Deepak K. Arora. 13. After going through the impugned Award, it is apparent that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was not registered in the name of Ujaggar Singh-driver (appellant in FAO No.628 of 1997). Rather, it was registered in the name of Deepak K. Arora. However, subsequently, the said vehicle was transferred in the name of Ujaggar Singh on 13.08.1991. A perusal of the deposition of Deepak K. Arora shows that the offending car was not insured with the Insurance Company on the date of accident and no compromise had been effected between him and the claimants. Vide Ex.RW-3/C, an undertaking was given by Ujaggar Singh that he had taken the possession of car in question on 13.08.1990 from Mr. Deepak K. Arora and he was responsible for all kind of challans, accidents and other liability of the said car. 14. Vide Ex.RW-3/C, an undertaking was given by Ujaggar Singh that he had taken the possession of car in question on 13.08.1990 from Mr. Deepak K. Arora and he was responsible for all kind of challans, accidents and other liability of the said car. 14. After going through the impugned Award, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has rightly given a finding that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was not transferred in the name of Ujaggar Singh. However, being driver of the same, he was held liable to make payment of compensation under the head "no fault liability" under Section 140 of the Act. Therefore, there is no merit in FAO No.628 of 1997 and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. As far as FAO No.685 of 1997 is concerned, the same has been filed by the claimants to seek enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. At this stage, deposition of Ved Parkash (AW-1) can be perused again. This witness was the brother of deceased-Ashok Kumar and on the date of accident, he along with deceased-Ashok Kumar was proceeding towards the Truck Union Office on G.T. Road on separate cycles. In the meantime, the offending car came from backside and hit the cycle of Ashok Kumar. Due to this accident, Ashok Kumar suffered grievous injuries and he was taken to Mittal Nursing Hospital, Rajpura in the same car. Thereafter, he was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where he succumbed to the injuries on 21.07.1991. 16. Surprisingly, Ved Parkash did not got registered any FIR or DDR against the driver of the offending car. He was real brother of deceased-Ashok Kumar and as per his deposition, at the time of accident, a number of persons from the same Mohalla were present there, who were known to them. However, none of them has been examined by the claimants to support their version with regard to the accident. Moreover, in the DDR, which was got registered by someone else, reference was made to a compromise, which was subsequently found to be unsustainable. 17. In the absence of any direct evidence of negligence against the driver, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that Ujaggar Singh being driver of the offending vehicle was liable to make payment of compensation under "no fault liability" does not require any interference. 17. In the absence of any direct evidence of negligence against the driver, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that Ujaggar Singh being driver of the offending vehicle was liable to make payment of compensation under "no fault liability" does not require any interference. Therefore, this appeal i.e. FAO No.685 of 1997 filed by the claimants is also liable to be dismissed. 18. In view of the above discussion, both the appeals i.e. FAO Nos.628 and 685 of 1997 are dismissed.