IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***

FAO-768-2014 Date of decision : 22.04.2025 Sis Ram and others ... Appellants Versus Jasbir Singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr.Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate and Mr.Navjot Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr.Arun Takhi, Advocate for the respondent.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

INDEX

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 17.08.2013 vide which the claim petition filed by the present appellants, who are the father, mother, widow and minor son of the deceased Parvinder Singh alias Parminder Singh, had been dismissed.

Arguments on behalf of the claimants-appellants

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the present case, the finding of the Tribunal on issue no.1 with respect to the fact that “whether the death of Parvinder Singh alias Parminder Singh had taken place in a road accident on 04.04.2012 on account of rash and negligent driving of Tata 407 bearing registration no.PB-08K-9825 by the respondent-Jasbir Singh” is incorrect and against law. It is submitted that it is apparent from the evidence and the documents on record that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent, who was driving the said Tata 407 and it is the said Tata 407, which was involved in the accident. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the evidence of eye witness AW-1 Manohar Lal as well as that of AW-2 and AW-3. Learned counsel for the appellants has further highlighted that the respondent Jasbir Singh had examined himself as RW-1 and had taken a specific plea to the effect that he had been falsely implicated in the FIR no.31 dated 05.04.2012 filed under Sections 279, 304-A, 337 and 427 IPC which was got registered by the eye witness AW-1, as the respondent had a heated conversation with a passerby and thereafter the police caught him and took him to the police station along with his vehicle. It is submitted that as per the examination-in-chief of the said RW-1, the incident at the tea stall had taken place at about 12 noon and in the cross-examination it had been stated that he was taken to the police station by the police at 4:30 pm and thereafter he was implicated in the present case.

3. It is submitted that the said version given by the respondent is on the face of it false, inasmuch as, the FIR no.31 dated 05.04.2012 against the respondent had been duly exhibited as Ex.A-5 and a perusal of the said FIR would show that the statement of the eye witness specifically mentioning the number of the vehicle of the respondent and also his name was recorded at 10:45 am and even the FIR was registered at 11:50 am, which was prior to the time of the alleged altercation. It is submitted that from the evidence of both the parties, it is proved beyond doubt that it was the respondent who was driving the vehicle in question and had caused the accident on account of his rash and negligent driving.

4. It is further submitted that no plea had been taken by the respondent in his written statement to the effect that the deceased was negligent in his driving and thus, the observations made by the Tribunal to the said effect are beyond pleadings and preverse. It is also submitted that a perusal of the post-mortem report Ex.A-2 would show that no reference with respect to the deceased having taken alcohol had been mentioned. It is further submitted that even the observations of the Tribunal to the effect that the averments made in the claim petition were contrary to the evidence and the allegations in the FIR, are also on account of misreading of the evidence and thus, the said observations also deserve to be set asid