Back
2007 Supreme(P&H) 1453
2007(4) LAW HERALD (P&H) 3079
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli
FAO No. 2314 of 1995
Varinderjit Singh
v.
Tajinder Singh
{Decided on 06/08/2007}
For the Appellant :Mr. L.S. Goraya, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3:Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate and Mr. Saurav Mohunta, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Accident— Under the Scheme incorporated under the Motor Vehicles Act relating to the enquiries by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the proceedings are summary in nature and strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,Section 166—Accident—Claim petition—Tribunal dismissed the petition—Appeal against—Claimant received injuries in a motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving of a tanker—FIR was registered—Witness of the occurrence gave a different version of the occurrence—Driver of the offending vehicle himself admitted accident, though, denied his act of driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner—Findings of Tribunal set aside—The case was remitted back, on following grounds :
(i) The job of the Tribunal is to ascertain as to whether the accident has been caused out of use of motor vehicle.
(ii) Under the Scheme incorporated under the Motor Vehicles Act relating to the enquiries by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the proceedings are summary in nature and strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
(iii) Statement of doctor who treated the appellant and appellant’s admission in the Hospital cannot be ignored
(iv) Claimant’s allegations regarding involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident are admitted by the driver of the offending vehicle which by itself is sufficient to prove accident involving offending vehicle.
(v) It appears that the Tribunal has acted as a criminal court where the occurrence was required to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt.
(vi) Whether he was on duty or not is not a relevant factor to sustain the claim.
(vii) The averments made in the written statement are significant.
Permod Kohli, J.:- This is claimant’s appeal against the award dated 17.5.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant has been dismissed. Claimant, Appellant herein, filed a claim petition (MACT No.26 of 1993) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar alleging therein that on 25.3.1992 at about 2.30 p.m. he was on duty and was walking on Ladowali Road, Jalandhar on his left hand side 2 of the road from Railway Crossing towards B.S.F. Chowk, when a tanker bearing Registration No.DIG/2511 came from B.S.F. Chowk side and hit the claimant/appellant. It is stated that the Tanker was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and without blowing any horn the tanker came on the right hand side of the road and its front right hand side hit the claimant/appellant. The claimant sustained injuries and his left foot was completely crushed. It is also mentioned that the driver of the vehicle ran away from the spot. The claimant was brought to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar wherefrom he was shifted to Grand Hospital, Grand Trunk Road, Phagwara and he was operated upon there. According to the claimant, he was admitted as an indoor patient at Grand Hospital, Grand Trunk Road, Phagwara firstly from 25.3.1992 to 6.4.1992 and again from 11.5.1992 to 13.5.1992. At the time of the accident, the claimant was 25 years of age and was employed as a Constable in Punjab Police. His salary at the relevant time was Rs.2500/- per month. It is alleged that the claimant incurred Rs.20890/- on his treatment and also paid Rs.15,000/- as fee to the doctors who treated him. It is further alleged that the Claimant suffered permanent disability due to amputation of his left foot. He also claims to be an Athlete and a Volleyball player and because of amputation of his left foot, his sports career is completely wiped off.
2. Respondents no.1 and 2 i.e. the owner and the driver of the offending Tanker filed a joint written statement. In the written statement filed, it is stated that the vehicle was not being driven rashly and negligently. While explaining the occurrence, it is stated that in fact the driver was driving the vehicle normally on his extreme left hand side of the road. It is further mentioned that the accident took place when the petitioner negligently tried to cross the road from the street leading to his residence. It is also mentioned that the claimant did not see towards his left hand side before crossing the road which resulted in the accident. Respondent no.3- Insurance Company denied the allegations in a routine manner and also disputed its liability on the plea that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident nor the vehicle was having a valid route permit and fitness certificate. It disputed its liability on the ground of alleged breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Company.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as four issues. For the purposes of present appeal, issue no.1 is relevant which reads as under:-
“1.Whether the claimant received injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 25.3.1992 on Ladowali Road, Jalandhar, on account of rash and negligent driving of a tanker bearing registration No.DIG/2511 by respondent no.1? OPA”
4. In order to prove this issue, the claimant himself entered into the witness box and also produced other witness Arvind Sharma. The claimant narrated the circumstances leading to the accident as alleged in the claim petition. However the witness of the claimant, namely, Arvind Sharma gave a different version of the occurrence. According to this witness, the claimant was running on scooter, when the Tanker hit the scooter and the left foot of the claimant got struck in the wheel of the offending tanker which dragged him for some distance. Besides this witness of occurrence, the claimant also produced Dr. Hari Singh Jaswal who stated that
