Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 328 (JK)

Union of India v. Jarnail Singh

2020-07-21

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT : CONC 113/2010 This is an application seeking condonation of 141 days in filing the appeal. Objections have not been filed to this application. Other wise also, I find that the reasons stated in the application constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Accordingly, this application is allowed. Consequently, delay of 141 days in filing the appeal is condoned. MA No.256/2010 1. Union of India (“appellant” for short) is in appeal against the judgment/award dated 31st July 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in file No. 520/2002 titled “Union of India vs. Jarnail Singh and others”, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant claiming compensation for the damage of its vehicle in the motor vehicle accident has been dismissed. 2.Briefly stated the facts, relevant to the disposal of this appeal, are that on 20th October, 2001 at 8.15 am, an Army Jeep bearing No. 00B-74178P when it was coming from Samba to Bari Brahmana was hit by an oil Tanker bearing No. HR-51-GA-1263 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”), as a result whereof, the army jeep allegedly suffered huge loss. As per the assessment made by the Army, the total loss suffered by the Army jeep was 2,81,528.00-. Alleging that the Army Jeep had been damaged due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, the appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. The claim petition was contested by respondent No.3 only. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issue: (i)Whether due to rash and negligent driver of vehicle No. HR-38-C 1766 army vehicle belonging to the petition was adversely damaged? 4. On the basis of evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove, by leading any cogent evidence, that the damage to the Army Jeep was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. 5. In the backdrop of aforesaid, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. The impugned award/judgment has been assailed on the following grounds: (i) That the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record correctly and has passed the impugned award/judgment in a most mechanical way. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. 5. In the backdrop of aforesaid, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. The impugned award/judgment has been assailed on the following grounds: (i) That the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence on record correctly and has passed the impugned award/judgment in a most mechanical way. (ii) That the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the amended claim petition which had been filed with the permission of the Tribunal and has passed the impugned award/judgment on the pleadings contained in the un-amended claim petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that given the nature of evidence adduced by the appellant, the view taken by the Tribunal on the issue of negligence cannot be found fault with. 7. From the statements of Col. Vikram Bhushan and Naib Subedar Babu Lal, it is abundantly clear that none of them have stated anything about the involvement of the offending vehicle and its rash and negligent driving by its driver. Their statements are only with regard to assessment of damage caused to the vehicle in the alleged motor vehicle accident. 8. As is rightly held by the Tribunal, in the absence of cogent evidence on record to prove that the Army jeep suffered damage on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, no claim for compensation would be sustainable. 9. Mr. Malhotra, learned CGSC, appearing for the appellant, despite all vehemence could not point out any evidence on record to substantiate the aforesaid fact. Even the assessment report brought on record by the appellant was not proved by adducing the evidence of the person/officer, who had prepared and signed the same. 10. It is true that in the award/judgment, the Tribunal has wrongly mentioned the Registration Number of the offending vehicle as HR38-C 1766, whereas the actual Registration Number of the offending vehicle was HR51-GA-1263, which error had been rectified by the appellant by filing the amended claim petition. 11. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal hurriedly decided the claim petition and even did not take note of the amendment. However, I am still of the view that the amended claim petition, even if had been taken note of by the Tribunal, it would not have made much difference. 11. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal hurriedly decided the claim petition and even did not take note of the amendment. However, I am still of the view that the amended claim petition, even if had been taken note of by the Tribunal, it would not have made much difference. I am saying so, because there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove the issue aforesaid and in the absence of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, no claim petition seeking compensation would lie against the driver, owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.