Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1724
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Manjit Kaur and others - Appellants
Versus
Sant Baba Labh Singh, Qila Anandgarh Sahib, Anandpur Sahib, Punjab and another - Respondents
FAO No. 2240 of 2011 (O&M)
Decided On : 04-10-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. H.S. Batth
For the Respondents: Mr. Vipul Sharma, Mr. Paul S. Saini
The onus of proof under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, lies with the claimants to establish rash and negligent driving, and a claim petition cannot be converted under Section 163-A after failing to establish a case under Section 166.
Headnote:
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166, Section 163-A, Section 140 - The court discussed the onus of proof under Section 166 of the Act, the requirement to establish rash and negligent driving, and the inability to convert a claim petition under Section 166 into Section 163-A after failing to establish a case. The court also granted an amount of Rs. 50,000 under Section 140 of the Act to the claimants.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of Narinder Singh in a road accident. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, stating that the claimants failed to establish rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimants did not discharge the onus of proving rash and negligent driving, and therefore upheld the dismissal of the claim petition. The court also rejected the contention to convert the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act.
Issues: The issues involved the onus of proof under Section 166 of the Act and the possibility of converting the claim petition under Section 163-A after failing to establish a case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the onus of proof on claimants under Section 166 of the Act to establish rash and negligent driving. It also relied on the decision in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda to reject the conversion of the claim petition under Section 163-A after failing to establish a case under Section 166.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the claimants were granted an amount of Rs. 50,000 under Section 140 of the Act, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 5.8.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tarn Taran (for short 'the Tribunal').
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are as under:
On 16.3.2006 Narinder Singh aged 50 years was coming back to his village on bicycle along with Amrik Singh and Mohinder Singh. Narinder Singh lost his life in the accident with truck bearing registration No. PAT-9074 (for short 'the offending vehicle'). Amrik Singh got registered DDR No.23 dated 16.3.2006 at Police Station Verowal.
3. The widow and two children of the deceased Narinder Singh filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). In support of their case, they examined AW1-Amrik Singh the alleged eye witness and also produced DDR Ex.A5.
4. The Tribunal after considering the witnesses and evidence, came to the conclusion that the claimants have failed to establish that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and consequently dismissed the claim petition with costs of Rs. 2000/-.
5. Aggrieved of the said award, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised two fold submissions. Firstly it was contended that the Tribunal should have ignored the contents of the DDR and should have relied upon the statement given by AW1-Amrik Singh. Secondly it was contended that in any case, the claim petition should be converted into under Section 163-A of the Act.
8. Learned counsel for respondents defended the award and stated that the claimants have failed to establish rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It was further contended that at this stage the claim petition cannot be converted into under Section 163-A of the Act.
9. Before dealing with the first issue, it is important to note the decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court on the issue of onus.
10. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Surender Kumar Arora and another Versus Dr. Manoj Bisla and others, 2012 (4) SCC 552, has held that under Section 166 of the Act, initial onus to prove that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, is on the claimants.
11. As per the above decision, the onus is on the claimants under Section 166 of the Act to prove that the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
12. In the present case only one alleged eye witness Amrik Singh deposed before the Tribunal stating that he alongwith Mohinder Singh and Narinder Singh (deceased) were going on separate bicycles to their village after performing their duties. According to him the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently, as a result of which it struck Narinder Singh and he lost his life. It is noteworthy that this very person in DDR has given a statement that accident occurred as truck suddenly slipped and turned on its side in the wheat fields, in that process, the truck struck against the bicycle of Narinder Singh and he died on the spot. The contradiction is evident. The matter does not ends here. The second person i.e. Mohinder Singh who according to the statement of Amrik Singh was also accompanying them, never stepped into the witness box. In such circumstance, it cannot be held that claimants have discharged the onus of proving rash and negligent driving.
13. No fault can be pointed in the award of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition.
14. With regard to second issue of converting the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, the said issue is no longer res-integra and is covered by the decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda 2004(5) SCC 385, wherein it was held as under:
''52. We, therefore, are of the opinion that remedy for payment of compensation both un
