Accident – Negligence – Though the mere registration of an FIR may not be the sole basis for returning a finding of negligence but it can be considered as material fact to form a prima facie view.

Mr. Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.:- This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two appeals as they arise out of the same award.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case, as alleged by the appellants, are that on 24.04.2008 Anil Kumar and his wife Parmod Kumari were coming back on LML Vespa Scooter No.HR-07C/8591 after attending a marriage. The scooter was being driven by Anil Kumar and his wife Parmod Kumari was on the pillion seat. When they reached at ITI Chowk crossing, Karnal, a truck bearing registration No.PB-13M/4671 being driven by Ruldu Singh came at a very fast speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter, due to which Parmod Kumari fell down, sustained multiple injuries and died at the spot. Anil Kumar also sustained injuries. A case bearing FIR No.183 dated 25.4.2008 under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC was lodged at Police Station Civil Lines Karnal against the driver of the truck, Ruldu Singh.

3. Two claim petitions were filed. The first claim petition titled ‘Amit Sharma and others vs. Ruldu Singh and others’ was filed by Anil Kumar, (husband) and Amit Sharma and Ms. Neha Sharma minor son and daughter respectively of deceased, Parmod Kumari, claiming compensation on account of her death. The second claim petition titled ‘Anil Kumar vs. Ruldu Singh’ was filed by Anil Kumar claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident.

4. It was the case of the claimants/appellants that Parmod Kumari was aged about 35 years at the time of her death. She was employed with Inder Trading Company, Nehru Palace, Karnal and was getting a package of Rs.1,08,000/- for the year 2007-2008. From 01.04.2008 her salary was to increase to Rs.9500/- per month. It was also pleaded that the deceased was looking after her family and after her death, they had to employ a maidservant for the said purpose.

5. Claimant-injured Anil Kumar was 40 years of age and was working with Mahesh Trading Company, Nehru Palace Karnal and getting salary of Rs.10,000/- plus Rs.5000/- as over time. He received multiple serious injuries in the accident. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was spent on his treatment which was still continuing. A sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was claimed as compensation.

6. Respondents No.1 and 2, the driver and owner of the truck pleaded that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of scooter driver- Anil Kumar, who was under the influence of liquor. Anil Kumar while driving his scooter came from the side of Kunjpura road in a drunken condition and while trying to cross the GT road, he struck with the culvert due to which he lost balance and the pillion rider fell on the road and died due to the injuries sustained thereby. There was no impact of the scooter with the truck and the respondents are not at fault.

7. The Ld. Tribunal framed the following issues in the case :-

“1. Whether the motor vehicular accident which took place on 24.04.2008 was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.PB13M-4671 by Ruldu Singh, respondent No.1 resulting into death of Smt. Parmod Kumari and injuries to claimant Anil Kumar. If so, its effect?OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to receive any amount of compensation. How much and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance ?OPR

4. Whether the claim petitions are not maintainable ?OPR

5. Whether the present claim petition has been filed by the claimant in collusion with drivers and owners i.e. Respondent No.1 and 2. If so its effect ?OPR

6. Relief.”

8. To prove its case regarding negligence, the claimant Anil Kumar Sharma appeared as PW1. Rajiv Gupta PW2, Partner of Inder Trading Company produced the salary certificate Ex.P3 of the deceased. PW3 Jaswant Rai, Ahlmad of the Court of CJM, Karnal produced the