Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1191
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
H.S. MADAAN, J.
Jaswinder - Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Kumar and Others - Respondents
FAO-7730-2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 27-05-2019
For the Appellant :Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Amandeep Saini, Advocate for Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate, Ms. Geeta Chaudhari, Advocate for Mr. Vinod Chaudhari, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove rash and negligent driving, validity of driving license, and entitlement to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - Section 166, 140, 141 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 166, 140, and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court highlighted the requirement to prove rash and negligent driving, validity of driving license, and entitlement to compensation under these sections. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and the burden of proof placed on the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166, 140, 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, which led to an appeal before the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Tribunal's decision was not sustainable and set it aside. The Court reversed the finding on the issue of rash and negligent driving, holding the respondent liable. The Court also awarded compensation to the petitioner based on the evidence presented.
Issues: The issues included the cause of the accident, validity of the driver's license, and entitlement to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reversed the finding on rash and negligent driving, emphasizing the burden of proof on the parties. The Court also highlighted the failure of the insurance company to discharge the onus of proof regarding the driver's license. The Court awarded compensation based on the evidence presented by the petitioner.
Final Decision: The Court accepted the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's award, and awarded compensation of Rs.3,65,000 with interest and costs to the claimant.
JUDGMENT :
H.S. Madaan, J.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner/claimant Jaswinder son of Sh. Fakiriya, aged about 37 years, resident of Shanti Nagar, Police Station Jhansa, District Kurukshetra had brought a claim petition under Section 166, 140, 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against respondents i.e. Sanjay Kumar driver, Ashu Kumar owner and United India Insurance Company Limited insurer of motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-07R-3579 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs.
2. As per the version of the petitioner/claimant on 17.12.2011 he was returning from village Tangore to his house at Shanti Nagar, Police Station Jhansa, District Kurukhsetra after selling vegetables on his rickshaw/cart; that at about 6:15 p.m. when he had just crossed Sugarcane Weigh Bridge and was going on his left side of the road, then all of a sudden respondent No.1 Sanjay Kumar driving his motorcycle at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner going on the wrong side of the road hit the rickshaw/cart of the petitioner/claimant, as a result the petitioner/claimant received serious injuries on his leg and his right leg was fractured; that Jagwinder Singh, a brother of the petitioner/claimant had arrived at the spot and noted down the number of the offending vehicle; that after the accident Sanjay Kumar - driver along with his motorcycle had left the spot; that the petitioner was taken to CHC Shahabad from where he was referred to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra; that formal FIR with regard to the accident in question was lodged.
3. According to the claimant, he had spent Rs.80,000/- on his treatment, medicines, transportation, special diet etc.
4. On being put to notice of the claim petition, all the three respondents appeared and filed written statements. A joint written statement had been filed by respondents No.1 and 2, whereas respondent No.3 insurance company had filed a separate written statement.
5. In the joint written statement filed by respondents No.1 and 2, they took up various preliminary objections contending that the claimant had no locus standi to file the claim petition; that the claim petition was bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties etc. On merits, such respondents denied that any accident had been caused by respondent No.1 while driving it in a rash and negligent manner, rather the very involvement of the motorcycle in question in the accident was denied. Refuting the remaining allegations in the claim petition, such respondents prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. Respondent No.3 insurance company in its written statement had also raised various legal objections on merits denying the accident in question submitting that a false version had been put up in order to fleece money from the answering respondent. According to such respondent, the motorcycle in question was being plied without any valid and effective driving licence. In the end, such respondent also prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
7. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the motor vehicle accident dated 17.12.2011 is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-07R-3579 driven by Sanjay Kumar respondent No.1? OPP.
2. Whether the respondent-driver of aforesaid vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident? OPR.
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid accident? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
4. Relief.
8. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.
9. In order to prove his case, the petitioner/claimant got his statement recorded as PW1 besides examining Dr. J.P. Bharal as PW2 and Dr. R.L. Arya as PW3.
10. On the other hand, respondents No.1 and 2 tendered in evidence copy of driving licence Mark-A, copy of registration certificate Mark-B and cop
