Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 2531
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DARSHAN SINGH, J.
Paramnanad Mittal - Appellant
Versus
Amandeep Kaur and others - Respondents
FAO No. 5640 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 20-12-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. P. K. S. Phoolka.
The court emphasized that in a claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, the tribunal has to base its findings on the evidence adduced before it, and subsequent developments in criminal cases are not grounds to non-suit the claimants in the claim petition filed under the provisions of the Act for grant of compensation.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicular Accident - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 279/304A/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the owner of a truck against an award of compensation to claimants for a motor vehicular accident. The appellant contended that their vehicle was not involved in the accident and was falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the claimants, including the witness testimony and the mode of the accident, established that the truck driven by the appellant had caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's vehicle was involved in the accident and whether the award of compensation was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court based its decision on the evidence presented before it, emphasizing that the subsequent divergent statement of a witness in a criminal case and the acquittal of the driver in the criminal case were not grounds to find fault with the conclusion arrived at by the tribunal on the issue of negligence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as it was found to be without merit.
DARSHAN SINGH, J.
CM-19440-CII-2016
Heard on the application.
In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and the delay of 310 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.
Main Appeal
The present appeal has been preferred by the owner of truck bearing registration No.PB-11AN-9745 (respondent No.2 in the claim petition) against the award dated 01.08.2015 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kaithal vide which respondents No.1 to 6-claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of 14,07,740/- on account of death of Narender in the motor vehicular accident which took place on 16.08.2014.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant owner of the vehicle to assail the award.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper-book carefully.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the entire case of the claimants was based on the statement of PW-3 Raju, the witness of the occurrence. Said Raju has also appeared as a witness of the occurrence in the criminal case but he did not support the prosecution version in the criminal case and categorically stated that on the date of accident he along with deceased Narender was going on motorcycle No. HR-06S-2263 from Nabha to Kaithal, when they reached near village Bouran Kalana they tried to overtake one unidentified vehicle. The said vehicle suddenly diverted to the side in a rash and negligent manner and struck with the motorcycle. Due to which they fell down. Narender died due to the injuries. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant contended that as per the statement made by Raju in the criminal case, the vehicle owned by the appellant was not involved in this accident. It was the stand of the appellant throughout the trial of the claim petition that his vehicle was not involved in the accident and has been falsely implicated. Thus, he contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly passed the award against the appellant.
5. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.
6. As per the version of the claimants on 16.8.2014 deceased Narender was coming back from Malerkotla to Kaithal via Nabha-Bhawanigarh on motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-06S-2263 being driven by PW-3 Raju on moderate speed and on the extreme due left side of the road. When they reached near the village Boda Kalana near petrol pump ahead of Nabha, a gas truck bearing registration No. PB-11AN-9745 being driven by respondent No.7 (respondent 2 in the claim petition) at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner took the sudden turn and hit the motorcycle. Due to the impact, both the occupants of the motorcycle namely Raju and Narender fell down on the road and sustained the injuries. Later on, Narender succumbed to the injuries. The criminal case bearing FIR No.79 dated 17.8.2014 was also registered against respondent No.7 for causing this accident.
7. The appellant and respondent No.7 Gurmit Singh, the driver of the vehicle filed the joint written statement wherein they alleged that the vehicle in question was not the offending vehicle and has been falsely involved in this accident. A false FIR has been lodged against respondent No.7.
8. The respondents No.1 to 6-claimants have examined PW-2 Satvinder Sharma who proved the copy of the FIR Ex.PA and also deposed that the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the “Cr.P.C.”) for the offence punishable under Section 279/304A/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”) has been forwarded to the criminal court against respondent No.7 Gurmit Singh. PW-3 Raju the witness of the occurrence has fully corroborated the mode of the accident mentioned by the claimants in the claim petition. He categorically deposed that he was driving the motorcycle at a moderate speed on the extreme left side of the road. Deceased Narender was the pillion rider. When they reached in the area of Pind Boda Kalan near petrol pump ahead
