SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(P&H) 599

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Darshan Singh
FAO No. 1453 of 2007(O&M)
Rudhar Mani
v.
Kulvir Singh
{Decided on 29/02/2016}

Advocates:
For the Appellants:Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.1 & 2:Mr. N.S. Bhinder, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3:Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Claim Petition--Mere registration of the FIR and filing of the challan by the police in the criminal case does not establish the negligence of the any of the driver and the same cannot be said to be conclusive--Tribunal is required to act upon the evidence adduced before it. (Para 14)

       (B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Claim Petition--Negligence--Driver of the car has violated the Regulations and was rash and negligent while taking the turn towards the right side in order to cross the other lane, which resulted in this accident--Driver of the jeep who was coming on his correct lane cannot be held negligent for causing this accident--Mere registration of FIR and filing of charge sheet against driver of jeep does not prove his negligence--Tribunal to act upon the evidence adduced before it. (Para 14)

       

JUDGMENT

Mr. Darshan Singh, J.:- CM-7027-CII-2007

There is delay of 09 days in re-filing the present appeal. The appellants have filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for condonation of delay.

Heard on the application.

In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and delay in re-filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

FAO No.1453 of 2007

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellantsclaimants against the award dated 13.09.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (hereinafter called the ‘Tribunal’) vide which the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) filed by the claimants for grant of compensation on account of death of Sansar Chand Walia in the in the motor vehicular accident, which took place on 07.02.2005, has been dismissed.

3. The facts, in brief, are that on 07.02.2005 deceased Sansar Chand Walia along with his wife Santosh Walia and other relatives attended the marriage party at Royal Retreat Place, near Wonderland, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar. They were returning in their car make Lancer bearing registration No.PB-10AT-5559, being driven by Jai Kumar. They were coming from the said Marriage Place towards Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar at about 12:15 a.m. (night). When the car took turn from Ravi Dass Chowk towards Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar, a Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No.PB-09A-4327 came from the opposite side being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the car. Even the jeep was turned turtle. The persons travelling in the car suffered injuries. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, the driver of the jeep. Jai Kumar was driving the car at slow speed and on the left side of the road. FIR No.27 dated 27.02.2005 was registered at Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar against respondent No.1. Deceased was taken to Gahi Hospital, Jalandhar and then shifted to DMC, Ludhiana, but he succumbed to the injuries on 09.02.2005. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was spent on his treatment. It is further pleaded that deceased Sansar Chand Walia was 65 years of age. He was the partner in M/s Apex Industries and M/s Apex Exports Industries. He was having monthly income to the tune of Rs.26,500/- approximately. The claimants have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum.

4. The respondents contested the claim petition. Respondents No.1 & 2 have filed the joint written statement wherein they pleaded that at the time of accident, respondent No.1 was driving the jeep from the side of Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar towards Ravi Dass Chowk, situated on Nakodar Road, Jalandhar. A Lancer car suddenly came from the side of Ravi Dass Chowk and took a sudden turn towards the right hand side, where Ghai Hospital is situated, without bothering the traffic coming on the right side of the road. As the car had taken the sudden turn, the vehicle of respondent No.1 was at a very short distance. He applied full brakes, but despite that, the accident could not be avoided and front portion of the jeep struck against the car. It is pleaded that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. Respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Ltd., also pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. Certain legal and preliminary objections were also raised and it was pleaded that the respondents are not liable for payment of any amount of compensation.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Tribunal:

1. Whether Sansar Chand died in a motor vehicle accident due to the rash and negligent driving of jeep bearing No.PB-09A- 4327 driven by respondent No.1 on 7.2.2005? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and f


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top