Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2286
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
B.S. WALIA, J.
Gurpreet Kaur and others - Appellants
Versus
Subash Kumar and others - Respondents
FAO No.47 of 1994 (O&M)
Decided On : 13-10-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Vinod Kataria, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Goswami, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of credible evidence and the burden of proof in establishing liability for compensation under the Motor Vehicle's Act.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle's Act - Compensation - Section 140 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle's Act, 1988 and its application in awarding compensation for no-fault liability. The court highlighted the relevance of evidence, the role of eyewitness testimony, and the significance of medical reports in determining liability and awarding compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a claim petition for compensation for the death of Lakhvir Singh in a motor vehicle accident. The main witnesses' credibility and the evidence regarding the accident were disputed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the main witness was not credible and did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The court also considered the medical report, which indicated that the deceased had crush injuries, leading to the conclusion that the witness was not an eyewitness to the accident.
Issues: The issues included the negligence of the driver, the credibility of the witnesses, the entitlement to compensation, and the validity of the claim application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of credible evidence to establish the negligence of the driver and the discrepancies in the witness testimony and medical report.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the case.
B.S. Walia, J.
1. Challenge is to award dated 13.08.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridkot (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- only on account of No fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle's Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal are that a claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the widow, minor children and parents of Lakhvir Singh claiming compensation for his death in a accident involving Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing registration No. PJI-7760 driven by Lakhvir Singh and a four-wheeler bearing Registration No. PCS-9775 driven by Gurdial Singh, respondent No.2 while the former was going from village Mallan to Village Kot Karor to see his married sister on 02.11.1989. As per the case set up by the claimants, when Lakhvir Singh reached near Village Tehna on Farikot-Talwandi Bhai Road at about 6.30 p.m., his relatives, Pritam Singh and Karam Singh, met him on the Bus Stand where the three talked for some time whereafter Lakhvir Singh left for village Kot Karor. In the meanwhile, a four-wheeler bearing Registration No. PCS-9775 driven rashly and negligently by Gurdial Singh, respondent No.2, came from the opposite side and struck against the scooter of Lakhvir Singh as a result of which Lakhvir Singh fell down from the scooter, received multiple injuries and died at the spot. Driver of the offending vehicle stopped the Tempo at some distance, came to PW-2 Santokh Singh and disclosed his name as Gurdial Singh.
3. Owner and driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2 denied the allegations against them and took up the stand of the accident having taken place due to the negligence of Lakhvir Singh with some other vehicle. Lakhvir Singh's age at the time of his death, was also disputed and it was claimed that he was more than 55 years of age, was unemployed, had no income and the claim was vague and highly exaggerated. It was also alleged that the deceased was not having a valid driving license and that the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of scooter No. PJI-7760.
4. Insurer of the four wheeler i.e. respondent No.3 also raised similar objections and confined its liability as per the provisions of the Act, terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. Involvement of the four wheeler in the accident was denied.
5. According to Insurance Company, respondent No.4, its liability as per the Policy was against third party and not the driver of the scooter. Respondent No. 4 also took up the stand that it was not liable for any compensation and that even as per the stand of the claimants, the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of respondent No.2 in driving four wheeler No. PCS-9775. Another plea was that drivers of both the vehicles were not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed :-
1. Whether Lakhbir Singh died on account of negligent driving of 4-wheeler TDV No. PCS-9775 by Gurdial Singh respondent No.2 on 02.11.1989 as alleged? OPA.
2. Whether the applicants are the legal representatives of Lakhbir Singh deceased? OPA.
3. Whether the aforesaid vehicle is owned by Subhash Kumar respondent No.1? OPA.
4. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, how much? OPA.
5. Whether the aforesaid vehicle No. PCS-9775 was not being driven by an authorized person having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident? OPR3.
6. Whether the aforesaid vehicle was not having a valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident? OPR-3.
7. Whether Scooter No. PJI-7760 was not being driven by an authorized person having a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3.
8. Whether the application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR.
9. Whether the claim application is not m
