IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

F.A.O. No. 1461 of 1994

Date of Decision : March 10, 2009

Ram Murti and others

....Appellants

Versus

Punjab State Electricity Board and others

.....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

Present :

Mr. N.L. Sammi, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate

for the respondents.

T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

This appeal has been filed by the claimants against the

award dated 12.4.1994 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Bathinda, whereby the application filed by the claimants

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the

Act’) was dismissed. However, their claim under Section 140 of the

Act was granted and they were held entitled to receive an amount of

Rs. 25,000/- on account of death of Ved Parkash in the accident.

On 23.5.1991, Ved Parkash, along with Rajinder Kumar @

Rajinder Singh, Devinder Singh @ Hari, Balwant Singh and Gurmit

Singh, was travelling in a Maruti van bearing registration No. PB-03A-

5792 from Dabwali to Bathinda. The van, which was owned by Ved

F.A.O. No. 1461 of 1994

-2-

Parkash, was being driven by Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Singh. At

about 4:30 P.M., a truck bearing No. PUR-3901 belonging to the

Punjab State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') being driven by

Piara Singh-respondent, came from the opposite direction, as a result of

which, there was a head on collision between the two vehicles. The

Maruti van was completely smashed. Balwant Singh and Ved Parkash

died at the spot. Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Singh and others were

removed to the hospital. Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Singh also died

later on. At the time of the accident, the truck belonging to the Board

was carrying electric poles and electricity transformers. F.I.R. was

registered against Piara Singh, driver at Police Station, Sangat on

23.5.1991 under Sections 279/327/304-A IPC.

Three separate claim petitions were filed by the heirs of the

deceased whereby they sought compensation as, according to them, the

accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of

the truck. The claim petitions were opposed by the respondent-Board

as well as by Piara Singh driver. According to them, Rajinder Kumar

@ Rajinder Singh, driver of the Maruti van, was rash and negligent in

driving as he was under the influence of alcohol at that time.

Moreover, Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Singh had no valid driving

licence at the time of the accident. It was also pleaded that the driver of

the Maruti van was trying to overtake a passenger bus. While doing so,

F.A.O. No. 1461 of 1994

-3-

he lost control over the vehicle. Piara Singh driver tried to avoid the

accident by taking the truck on to the Kacha portion on the left side of

the road but as Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Singh was driving the car

in a rash and negligent manner, he was not in a position to control the

movements of the van and, consequently, the accident took place.

After going through the pleadings of the parties, learned

Tribunal framed the following issues in the claim petition filed by the

applicants: --

1.

Whether the death of Ved Parkash took place

due to the rash and negligent act of driving of

respondent No. 2, Piara Singh ? OPP.

2.

If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of

compensation, the claimant is entitled to and

from whom ? OPP.

3.

Relief.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing

the evidence, learned Tribunal held that the entire fault leading to the

accident was of Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Singh, who was driving

the Maruti van, whereas Piara Singh, truck driver, could not be blamed

in any manner. In view of the said findings, learned Tribunal declined

to grant any compensation to the appellants under Section 166 of the

Act. However, they were granted an amount of Rs. 25,000/- under

F.A.O. No. 1461 of 1994

-4-

Section 140 of the Act as the death of Ved Parkash was result of an

accident.

Lea