Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2854 of 2005 (O/M) Date of Decision : 11.2.2014 Jasminder Kaur and another ......Appellants Versus Harsharan Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH Present:- Mr.Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr.Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
KULDIP SINGH, J.
(ORAL) This appeal has been filed by the claimants against the award dated 11.2.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short 'the Tribunal').vide which their claim petition was dismissed.
In nutshell, the case put up by the claimants before the Tribunal was that on 23.3.1998 at about 7:00 PM, Narinder Singh, who is stated to be the eye-witness, had gone to petrol pump Chunni to fill petrol in his scooter No.PB-23-8516.
When Narinder Singh was coming back on his scooter, he saw that a Maruti car No.PB-65-2030 came from Sirhind side at a fast speed.
Mohan Singh (since deceased) was going on his scooter No.PB- 23A-2987 from Chunni side and took the turn towards the petrol pump for filling petrol in his scooter.
The said car struck against the scooter of Mohan Singh.
It was alleged that the said car was being driven rashly and negligently.
As a result of the accident, Mohan Singh received injury on his head.
Narinder Singh stopped the said car and Mohan Singh was sent in the said car to Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib for treatment.
Narinder Singh himself went to the village of Mohan Singh (deceased) to inform his family about the accident.
Mohan Singh was referred to the Rajindra Hospital, Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2014.02.17 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2854 of 2005 (O/M) -2- Patiala.
Thereafter, Narinder Singh alongwith brother of Mohan Singh went to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala.
Later on, Narinder Singh came to know that the name of car driver was Harsharan Singh.
Mohan Singh was later on referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted upto 2.5.1999.
Mohan Singh slipped into comma and ultimately died on 18.4.2003.
The claim petition, which was earlier filed by Mohan Singh through his wife and son, namely, Jasminder Kaur and Gurjit Singh respectively, was accordingly amended and his legal heirs i.e.his wife and son pursued the claim petition.
Respondent No.1 in the written statement denied the accident.
He stated that a false case has been registered against him in collusion with the police to get compensation from him (respondent No.1).The insurance company took the usual preliminary objections that the driver of the car was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the claim petition was not maintainable and was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Following issues were framed for the disposal of the claim petition :- 1.
Whether Mohan Singh deceased received injuries in Motor Vehicular Accident which took place on 23.2.1998 near Petrol Pump Chunni on Sirhind Chunni Road due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car No.PB-65-2030 by respondent No.1 as driver and owner ?.
OPP.
2.
If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the LRs of Mohan Singh deceased are entitled for and from whom ?.
OPP.
3.
Whether claim petition is not maintainable in the present form ?.
OPR.
4.
Whether the Driver of Maruti Car No.PB-65-2030 was not having effective and valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident ?.
OPR-2.
5.
Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of owner, Driver and Insurance Co.of the Scooter No.PB-23A-2987 ?.
OPR-2.
Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2014.02.17 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2854 of 2005 (O/M) -3- 6.
Relief.
The Tribunal decided issued No.1 against the claimants holding that claimants have failed to prove that Mohan Singh died due to injuries suffered by him in the accident because of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.
As a result of the finding of the Tribunal, the claim petition was dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the file.
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that in this case, rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 is proved from the statement of Narinder Singh (the alleged eye-witness).He has also taken this Court through the statement of Narinder Singh made before the Tribunal.
I am of the view that the claim of Narinder Singh that after seeing the accident, he went to inform the brother of Mohan Singh (Injured) cannot be accepted as normal behaviour of an eye-witness.
According to Narinder Singh, he was known to Mohan Singh.
When Mohan Singh met with deadly accident and was lying unconscious, then Narinder Singh, who was known to Mohan Singh, would not have left him at the mercy of the driver/owner of the offending car by sending Mohan Singh in the offending car itself.
Therefore, it is apparent that Narinder Singh is a planted witness and his claim of being eye-witness, was rightly discarded by the Tribunal.
Then, before the Tribunal, a document Ex.R1 was produced which shows that an unknown male aged about 40 years was brought to Emergency OPD as a case of road side accident.
It was further recorded that injured was badly smelling of alcohol.
Narinder Singh has admitted in cross examination that if one goes from Chunni side, the petrol pump comes on the right side.
Mohan Singh had turned the scooter towards the petrol pump.
Which means Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2014.02.17 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2854 of 2005 (O/M) -4- that Mohan Singh, who was deadly drunk, took a turn towards the right hand petrol pump without caring for traffic on the road and in this way, he himself is to be blamed for the accident.
It was Harsharan Singh who took the injured to the hospital.
If Narinder Singh had seen the accident, the name of the injured must have been mentioned in document Ex.R1 at Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib.
The next question that would arise for determination is as to whether actually there was an accident between the scooter and offending car irrespective of fact as to who is liable for accident ?.
I find that though, the owner of the offending car has denied the accident, but the cross- examination of Narinder Singh, who was examined as PW3 before the Tribunal, shows that a specific suggestion was put to him that incident took place due to negligence of deceased Mohan Singh, who was under the influence of liquor, as he suddenly took turn towards the right side and struck against the car.
In this way, the accident between the car and scooter was admitted by putting suggestion to Narinder Singh during cross examination.
Therefore, even if there is no mechanical report of the car and scooter on file to show damage to both the vehicles, it has to be concluded that respondent admitted the accident though, negligent act of respondent No.1 is denied.
It being so, I come to the conclusion that an accident had taken place between the scooter of the deceased and the offending car of respondent No.1, but it was due to negligence of Mohan Singh (deceased) himself as he was under the influence of liquor and took a turn towards the right hand petrol pump without caring for traffic on the road.
Therefore, claimants are not entitled to any compensation, except a compensation for 'No Fault Liability'.
Therefore, the findings on issue No.1 are partly Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2014.02.17 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.2854 of 2005 (O/M) -5- modified as discussed above and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of 'No Fault Liability' is allowed to the claimants with 9% per annum interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization .
Since the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent-insurance company, the insurance company shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation.
The amount of compensation shall be paid by the respondent-insurance company to the claimants within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(KULDIP SINGH) JUDGE112.2014 sjks Sharma Sanjiv Kumar 2014.02.17 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh