FAO No.349 of 2001 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.349 of 2001(O&M) Date of Decision: August 4, 2014.
Smt.
Kalawati .....APPELLANT (s) Versus Dharampal and others .....RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL Present: Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Varun Issar, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.3.
***** 1.
Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2.
To be referred to the reports or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?.
***** LISA GILL, J.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is the widow of deceased – Dev Raj, impugning the award dated 06.06.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar Camp at Fatehabad (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Tribunal').Singh Omkar 2014.08.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.349 of 2001 [2].The brief facts are that the appellant's husband (Dev Raj).stated to be aged about 45 years and Mason by profession, passed away in an accident which occurred on 02.07.1997 due to the rash and negligent driving of four wheeler bearing registration No.HR-39/3943 driven by respondent No.1 – Dharampal.
The deceased – Dev Raj was stated to be proceeding from his village on his scooter bearing registration No.DAK-7871 at a moderate speed and while observing the traffic rules.
The Tribunal has held that the claimant has not been able to prove that the accident had taken place on 02.07.1997 with vehicle bearing registration No.HR-39/3943 and it has been held that the deceased was hit by some unknown vehicle and was involved in a hit and run case.
In this view of the matter no compensation was awarded to the appellant.
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that an FIR dated 02.07.1997 was registered against the respondent – Dharampal in respect to the said accident.
The report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.has been placed on record as Ex.P1.
The registration of the FIR by itself should be taken to be a sufficient proof of the accident having been caused by Dharampal.
The propounder of the FIR, namely, Chhabil Dass has been examined as PW2 and he has duly proved the registration of this FIR.
Therefore, there is enough evidence on record to show that it was the offending vehicle, which has caused the accident in which Dev Raj had lost his life.
Learned counsel for respondents have vehemently disputed the said averments and have argued that mere registration of the FIR cannot per se be taken as proof of the accident having been caused by the offending vehicle.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has further argued that there is collusion Singh Omkar 2014.08.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.349 of 2001 [3].between the appellant and the other respondents.
The claim has been falsely raised by the appellant.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it emerges that PW2 – Chhabil Dass who is the propounder of the FIR has somersaulted from his stand a number times.
It has been duly noted by the Tribunal in the impugned order that this witness has changed his version thrice.
The credibility of such a witness is clearly rendered doubtful in the facts and circumstances.
The court observation during the testimony of said witness, Chhabil Dass, is reproduced hereunder:- “The witness has changed his statement thrice, at the fiRs.instance the witness stated that he had disclosed the name of driver and four wheeler number to the police, at the second instance the witness stated that he had not stated the vehicle number and name of driver to police while recording FIR as it was known to him by them; and at the third instance the witness has again stated that he knew vehicle number and name of driver when he got the FIR recorded.”
.
A perusal of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.shows that nothing has been revealed by the Investigating Agency as to how the name of respondent – Dharampal emerged as the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.HR-39/3943.
It is simply mentioned in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.that Dharampal was arrested on 07.07.1997 (accident had taken place on 02.07.1997).How and in what manner and by whom he was revealed to be the accused, is a mystery which has not been unravelled.
There is no clue even as to how the description and number of the offending vehicle came to light before the Investigating Agency.
Singh Omkar 2014.08.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.349 of 2001 [4].There is no quarrel with the proposition that in such like summary proceedings before the MACT, the registration of an FIR to prove the occurrence of an accident is extremely relevant.
But in the present facts and circumstances, the registration of the FIR by itself does not indicate the involvement of the vehicle No.HR-39/3943 in the said accident which is stated to have caused the death of Dev Raj.
The appellant in para 24 of her claim petition has mentioned that the number of the offending vehicle was noted down by one Raj Singh.
The said Raj Singh has not been examined by the appellant, neither is he reflected in the list of witnesses in the criminal case nor is there any mention of the presence of Raj Singh at the time of alleged accident by PW2 – Chhabil Dass, who is the propounder of the FIR.
There is, thus, no infirmity in the finding returned by the Tribunal to the effect that the claimant – appellant has not been able to prove that the accident had taken place with the offending vehicle No.HR-39/3943 which led to the death of her husband – Dev Raj.
Keeping in view the above, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
( LISA GILL ) August 4, 2014.
JUDGE ‘om’ Singh Omkar 2014.08.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh