FAO-815 of 2012(O&M) -1-

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

FAO-815 of 2012(O&M)

Date of Decision: November 29^th, 2017

Umed Singh

---Appellant

vs.

Shanti Devi and others

---Respondents

Coram:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal

***

Present:

Mr. Anil Kumar Gehlawat, Advocate

for the appellant

Mr. Devender Arya, Advocate

for Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate

for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6

***

Rekha Mittal, J.

The present appeal directs challenge against award dated

4.10.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (in short

“the Tribunal”) whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,36,000/- with

interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization,

on account of death of Raghubir Singh in a motor vehicular accident that

took place on 13.12.2005 at about 3-00 p.m., has been awarded.

Counsel for the appellant (owner of the alleged offending

vehicle i.e. motor cycle bearing No. HR-12E-2153) has assailed the award

imposing liability to pay compensation upon the driver and owner of the

Paramjit Kaur Saini

2017.12.02 10:33

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO-815 of 2012(O&M) -2-

vehicle in question. It is argued that with regard to the occurrence in

question, FIR No. 262 dated 14.12.2005 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC was

lodged at Police Station, Sampla against Rajesh but Rajesh has been

acquitted of the offence vide judgment dated 11.2.2009. The application for

compensation was filed by the claimants on 12.3.2009, one month after

acquittal of Rajesh, sufficient to show that story propounded by the

claimants is doubtful and liable to be rejected.

Counsel would urge that as a matter of fact, accident had been

caused by Rajesh but while driving motor cycle No. DL-4SAA-9346

owned by Surinder Kumar resident of Delhi, brother-in-law of one Parkash

son of Khima resident of village Dataur, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak.

After the accident, Parkash came to the appellant and took away his motor

cycle on the pretext of urgent work and he (Parkash) in collusion with the

police also procured signatures of Devender son of the appellant on some

blank papers and succeeded in involving motor cycle of the appellant in the

criminal case. When the appellant inquired about this matter from said

Parkash, he stated that he would be responsible for the fate of accident and

further stated that if his brother-in-law's motor cycle is impounded, he

(Parkash's brother-in-law) may commit suicide. Parkash undertook that he

would be liable for all liabilities of the police case and in this way, motor

cycle of the appellant was involved in the occurrence. In addition, it is

argued that motor cycle of the appellant is of black colour but motor cycle

of Surinder Kumar is of red colour, as per particulars of both the vehicles

recorded in the registration certificates Mahabir son of Hari Singh, an

alleged eye witness to the occurrence in his cross examination has deposed

Paramjit Kaur Saini

2017.12.02 10:33

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

FAO-815 of 2012(O&M) -3-

that offending motor cycle is of red colour, sufficient to substantiate plea of

the appellant that motor cycle of Surinder Kumar was involved in the

occurrence.

Counsel representing the respondents has supported findings of

the Tribunal with the submission that the Tribunal, on a detailed

consideration of the aforesaid arguments advanced there, has refused to

accept contention of the appellant. It is further argued that it is against

normal human conduct that a person would lend his vehicle for involvement

in the criminal and civil proceedings knowing fully well that the vehicle is

not insured and compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if any, would be his

responsibility. The last submission made by counsel is