Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAMENDRA JAIN, J.
Chand Singh - Appellant
Versus
Rajinder Singh and others - Respondents
FAO No.3576 of 2009
Decided on : 08-05-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. A.S. Sidhu, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of credible evidence and meeting the burden of proof in establishing liability in hit and run cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Motor Accident Claims - Section 166 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - The court discussed the evidence presented under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the interpretation of eyewitness testimony, police investigation, and the burden of proof in hit and run cases.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant appealed the dismissal of his petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, after his brother was killed in a hit and run accident. The Tribunal dismissed the claim mainly due to lack of evidence proving the involvement of the accused driver and the witness being considered a procured witness.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the witness's conduct was unnatural and raised doubts about the authenticity of the evidence presented. It also criticized the police investigation and the conduct of the investigating officer. The court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the witness, the conduct of the investigating officer, and the burden of proof in hit and run cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the unnatural conduct of the witness, the lack of credible evidence, and the failure to meet the burden of proof in establishing the accused's involvement in the accident.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J.
1. Through this appeal, claimant has laid challenge to impugned award dated 30.01.2009 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), dismissing his petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
2. Put pithily, in the evening of 21.11.2006, deceased Dalbir Singh, when was waiting for a transport at Village Kheri Damkan to go to his Village, he was knocked down by an unknown vehicle. Hukam Chand, Chowkidar of Village Kheri Damkan, reported the matter to the police. On the basis of his statement duly signed by him, FIR (Ex.P4) was registered against an unknown vehicle around 10:30 p.m. on the same day. Police started investigation, but did not find any clue as to who had caused the accident. However, all of a sudden, after one month one Satyawan (PW3), resident of Murthal, appeared in the police station and made a statement that around one month back on 21.11.2006, he had witnessed the accident caused by a Haryana Roadways Bus bearing registration No.HR-69-0474, driven by respondent No.1, namely, Rajinder Singh, as a result of which Dalbir Singh had died. On the basis of his statement, respondent No.1 was challaned by the police, filing final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against him in the Court to face trial.
3. Dalbir Singh at the time of his death was aged around 35 years and unmarried. His elder brother Chand Singh, aged above 50 years, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal, claiming himself as legal heir of his deceased younger brother Dalbir Singh, to award him compensation of Rs.15 lakhs. The Tribunal after holding trial, dismissed the claim petition mainly on following two grounds: -
(i) Involvement of Haryana Roadways bus being driven by respondent No.1 could not be proved by the appellant-claimant beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, it was a hit and run case.
(ii) PW3 Satyawan, who had disclosed the name of respondent No.1 as offending driver before the police, was not cited as a prosecution witness while submitting report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Therefore, his statement was beyond the scope of consideration being a procured witness.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that PW3 Satyawan before the Tribunal has specifically testified that he had seen respondent No.1 knocking down deceased Dalbir Singh, while driving bus No.HR-69-0474. Despite lengthy cross-examination, his testimony could not be shaken. The Tribunal, relying upon his testimony, ought to have granted compensation to the appellant-claimant while accepting his claim petition. PW5 ASI Mohinder Singh had also deposed before the Tribunal about involvement of respondent No.1 and Haryana Roadways bus aforesaid. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence of aforesaid witnesses coupled with the statement of Balwan Singh PW3, before whom respondent No.1 had made extra-judicial confession of causing accident and knocking down deceased Dalbir Singh. The Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that police after thorough investigation has found involvement of respondent No.1 in the accident in question, in which Dalbir Singh died.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4-insurance company, vehemently opposing the above submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, contends that statement of Satyawan PW3, considering his unnatural conduct, has rightly been ignored by the Tribunal, giving specific finding that he was a procured witness.
6. Having given considerable thought to the submissions made by both the sides, I find that this appeal is completely devoid of any merit for the reasons to follow.
7. PW3 Satyawan, alleged eyewitness, was introduced by the appellant-claimant after one month of the accident, who disclosed to the police about the alleged involvement of respondent No.1 while driving bus bearing registration No.HR-69-0474. Man may speak lie, but the circumstances not. His
