FAO No.2334 of 2008(O&M)

[ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

...

FAO No.2334 of 2008(O&M)

Decided on : December 04, 2009

Gurdeep Kumar

... Appellant

VERSUS

Gorkha Singh

... Respondent

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

Present:

Mr.Tushar Sharma,

Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Suresh Goel,

Advocate for the respondent.

A.N.JINDAL, J.-

Gurdeep Kumar – appellant has assailed the award dated

24.9.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Barnala (herein

referred as `the Tribunal') awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/-

in favour of the claimant – respondent Gorkha Singh (herein referred as `the

claimant') on account of the death 2 months 24 days' old calf in a motor

vehicle accident.

Brief resume of facts is that on 4.9.2006, the claimant along

with his brother Manpreet Singh took a mare and her calf from his house

and while they were going on the katcha path on the passage to Bihla, at

about 6.45 AM, Manpreet Singh while riding the mare was going ahead of

FAO No.2334 of 2008(O&M)

[ 2 ]

the claimant and was accompanied by the calf. In the meantime, the

appellant while driving an Indica Car bearing Reg.No.DL2CM-5918 rashly

and negligently came from the side of village Diwana and struck the calf,

as a result of which the calf died at the spot. Consequently, the claimant

sought compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs on account of the sudden

termination of the life of the calf.

The claim petition was contested and the appellant (therein the

respondent) denied all the allegations. However, he explained that the

accident had taken place all of a sudden. The calf was running after the

mare, going ahead of her and the person accompanying the calf could not

control the animal. As such, the accident took place per chance on

account of the fault on the part of the person, accompanying the calf. He

also denied if the claimant was owner of the calf.

Finding the parties at variance, the following issues were

framed:-

“1.

Whether filly equine (female calf) of Breed Marwari

(Nukri) owned by Gorkha Singh died in a motor vehicular

accident which took place on 4.9.2006 on account of rash and

negligent driving of car No.DL2CM-5918 by respondent No.1

Mandeep Kumar?

2.

If issue No.1 is proved, whether claimant is entitled to

compensation, if so to what extent?

3.

Relief.”

Both the parties led evidence. Ultimately, the claim petition

FAO No.2334 of 2008(O&M)

[ 3 ]

was partly accepted and a sum of Rs.40,000/- along with interest @ 6% was

awarded to the claimant.

No meaningful argument has been advanced to establish if the

accident did not take place on account of the fault on the part of the

appellant. The claimant, who was accompanying the calf has categorically

deposed that on the relevant date, when he along with his brother Manpreet

Singh was taking the mare and calf to their house and when they reached on

the `periphery' of the village, the appellant while driving his Indica Car

rashly and negligently struck his car against the calf, as a result of which,

the calf died at the spot. Consequently, FIR No.63 dated 4.9.2006 under

Sections 279/429 IPC was registered at Police Station Bhadaur against the

appellant qua his negligence. Consequently, the appellant was challaned.

Even the FIR bears the name of the driver of the offending vehicle and the

contents of the said FIR are in consonance with the statement of claimant

Gorkha (PW1). There is no evidence to rebut these allegations. The

appellant has failed to bring any cogent evidence on the record in order to

establish that he was not at fault.

As regards the other argument with regard to the quantum of

compensation, no doubt, the doctor at the time of the post mortem

examination of the calf evaluated her to be worth Rs.40,000/-, but this

evaluation is not based on any data or formula. Be that as it may, the said

evaluation was regarding a strong healthy