The absence of mention of rash and negligent driving in the FIR does not preclude the claimants from raising a claim under the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, and delay in raising the claim does not cause prejudice if the entitlement for compensation is proven by the facts and evidence on record.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral). -

CM-24497-CII-2016 in FAO-7150-2016

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 147 days in re-filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 147 days in re-filling the appeal is condoned.

Main Cases

3. Vide this common judgment, two appeals bearing FAO No.6862 of 2016 and FAO No.7150 of 2016 which arise out of the same incident, the details of which have been given in the heading, are being decided.

4. For the purpose of this order, the facts are being taken from FAO-6862-2016.

5. As per the facts mentioned in the present appeal, the claimants are the victims who suffered injuries in an accident which took place on 16.07.2008. Certain facts were mentioned in the claim petition filed before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal so as to claim that the respondents who were driving the Innova car bearing registration No.CH03-U-5175 drove the said car in a rash and negligent manner which act on their part has caused the accident wherein, Angrej Singh and Balkar Singh fell down and received multiple grievous injuries. It is further mentioned that for the said accident, an FIR No.63 dated 26.07.2008 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the IPC was registered against respondent No.2-Harpal Singh, who was driving the Innova car.

6. Keeping in view the said injuries suffered by the victims, claim petition was filed by both the injured-victims claiming compensation on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2-Harpal Singh, who was driving the Innova car which had hit the motor-cycle being driven by the claimants from behind. Keeping in view the evidence which had come on record, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Gurdaspur awarded compensation to the claimants-victims, vide Award dated 04.02.2016. As per the Award dated 04.02.2016, Angrej Singh was awarded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for the injuries and for the pain and suffering, whereas the other claimant-Balkar Singh was awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/-, which award is under challenge in the present first appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) argues that while recording the finding that respondent No.2-Harpal Singh who was driving the Innova car was negligent, the Tribunal ignored the factum that while registration of the FIR for the said accident, there was no mention of rash and negligent driving by Harpal Singh though other serious allegations were levelled against the said driver.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the claim petitions were filed after a period of 5 years of the accident which itself shows that the said claim of the respondents was bogus and the same was raised only with the connivance of the driver (Harpal Singh-respondent No.2) of the offending vehicle so as to make the Insurance Company liable for payment of the compensation.

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the findings which have been recorded by the Tribunal in the present case is on the basis of the evidence which had come on record including the statements of the claimants and other witnesses and after taking into consideration the FIR in question hence, the grounds being raised by the appellant-company to avoid/escape their liability as passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal may kindly be rejected.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and has gone through the record.

10. The first argument which has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that two different stands have been taken by the claimants-victims before the Criminal Court and Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, which fact itself shows that the claim of the victims is bogus and their claim should have been rejected by the Tribunal.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once while recording the FIR, there was no mention of the rash and negligent driving by Harpal Singh-driver of the offending vehicle, treating the incident as an a