FAO No.2675 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2675 of 2010(O&M) Date of order:
30. 07.2013 Bhateri and ors....Appellants Versus Mahavir and ors...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the appellants.
Service qua respondent No.1 dispensed with.
None for respondent No.2.
Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3.
-- **** Vijender Singh Malik, J.
This is claimants' appeal against the award dated 21.01.2010 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short 'the Tribunal') vide which the claim petition has been dismissed.
Learned Tribunal has found under issue no.1 that the claimants have failed to prove that Rohtash had died due to electrocution and suffered injuries while sitting in canter bearing registration not HR-38J-6262 on account of negligence of respondent no.1.
Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.02 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAO No.2675 o”
2. In this claim petition, a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- is sought as compensation.
The facts are that on 10.08.2007 at about 8.30 PM about 10 to 15 persons including Rohtash since deceased was going to Haridwar to bring kanwar (carriage for bringing holy water for being offered on Shivling) .
He was sitting on the cabin of the canter.
Jai Bhagwan and Ravinder were also sitting with him.
The driver of the canter was driving the vehicle at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner.
When the canter was near village Sewah at about 8.30 or 9.00 PM, the deceased as well as others requested the driver of the vehicle to move it slowly.
In the meantime, the canter approached a railway crossing where an electric wire was hanging in the center of the road.
Rohtash got entangled in the same and he fell down on the road and suffered fatal injuries.
The involvement of the canter in question in the accident is denied by the respondents.
The other pleas to avoid payment of compensation are also taken.
Framing issues and taking evidence, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion under issue no.1 that the accident is not proved to be an outcome of rash or negligent driving by respondent no.1 of canter not HR-38J-6262.
On this finding, learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.
Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.02 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAO No.2675 o”
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that in the FIR the canter number mentioned as HR-38A-6262 while in the evidence the canter number is HR-38J-6262.
According to him, the difference there is of one letter in the number of the canter and this was on account of mistake which was seriously taken by learned Tribunal.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, has submitted that the Tribunal has been justified in taking the view that the vehicle is not proved to have been driven in a rash and negligent manner and this vehicle is not involved in the accident.
The accident occurred on 10.08.2007.
A DDR was lodged about this accident on the very next day i.e.on 11.08.2007.
That DDR was recorded on the basis of the statement of Dharam Pal son of Krishan Lal, who claimed himself to be an eye witness of the accident.
In the said DDR, he gave the number of the vehicle as HR-38-A-6262.
Since no allegation came in the DDR making anyone responsible for the accident, the police did not take any action.
After three months of the accident, a complaint was filed by Dharam Pal, which was sent to the police station under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.and on the same, FIR was registered.
In the said complaint and the FIR registered thereon, the number of the vehicle is again HR-38A-6262.
However, while filing the claim petition, Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.02 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAO No.2675 o”
4. the number of the vehicle is changed and it is made as HR-38J.6262.
No evidence has come to show as to how the mistake in the number of the offending vehicle came to the notice of the claimants and how they came to knot that the actual vehicle involved in the accident was HR-38J-6262.
On the very next day of the accident, the vehicle number is mentioned as HR-38A-6262.
After three months of the accident, the number of the vehicle remains the same but at the time of filing of the claim petition, the number changes to HR-38J-6262.
This appears to be a mysterious circumstance in the presence of which the statement that this vehicle was involved in the accident cannot be believed.
Learned Tribunal has, therefore, been justified in holding that the number of this vehicle HR-38J-6262 has been given belatedly and reliance cannot be placed on the same.
Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the finding of learned Tribunal on issue no.1.
Resultantly the same is affirmed.
Consequently, the appeal is found to have no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 30 07.2013 dinesh Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.02 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh FAO No.2675 o”
5. 211 Bhateri and ors.v.Mahavir and ORS.Present:- Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the appellants.
None for respondent No.2.
Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3.
-- Notice could not be served upon respondent no.1.
However, it is a case where no notice is required to be given to respondent No.1.
Hence, service upon respondent No.1 is dispensed with.
Learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue the case.
Let the same be argued.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 30 07.2013 dinesh Kumar Dinesh 2013.08.02 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh