Present: Mr. Sandeep Bansal Advocate Vs. Balbir Lal Son of Tarsem Chand and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1054755
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-16-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr. Sandeep Bansal Advocate
RespondentBalbir Lal Son of Tarsem Chand and Another
Excerpt:
fao no.2310 of 1998 -1- in the high court for the states of punjab and haryana at chandigarh fao no.2310 of 1998 date of decision.16.01.2013 sarwan kumar son of lutoria ram .....appellant versus balbir lal son of tarsem chand and another .......respondents 2. fao no.1694 of 1998 karam singh son of lakha singh and another .....appellants versus balbir lal son of tarsem singh and another .......respondents present: mr.sandeep bansal, advocate for the appellants. none for the respondents. coram:hon'ble mr.justice k. kannan 1 whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. no 2. to be referred to the reporters or no.?. no 3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. no -.- k. kannan j.(oral) 1. the appeals are at the instance of the claimants against the respective orders dismissing the claim petitions on the ground that the claimants had not established that the respondent's vehicle had been involved in the accident. the accident had taken place on 04.02.1996 and fir had been registered on 06.02.1996 on the basis of statement said to have been given by one of the claimants, who has been examined in this case as pw1. in the statement purported to have been given, it was recited that it was an unknown vehicle which was involved in the accident. the petitions claiming compensation had been filed on 28.02.1996 and 29.02.1996 and still later on 25.05.1996, a complaint had been given to the fao no.2310 of 1998 -2- police officials setting out information about the identity of the vehicle, which was said to have been involved in the accident but it appears that the police had closed the file referring to the investigation as not revealing the identity of any particular vehicle as having been involved in the accident. at the trial, the evidence is given by the doctor, who treated him that at the time when pw1 was admitted, he was still confused and this was used by the claimant to contend that he was not in a fit state to give a statement to the police. rw-1 was the investigating officer, who gave evidence to the effect that at the time when the statement was recorded, which was the basis for lodging the fir, pw1 did not give any details of the vehicle involved in the accident and before his signature was taken to the statement at the time of registration of the fir, it was read out to him and he had acknowledged the same to be correct. this was a manner of explanation to the contention raised by the claimant that if there were no particulars given in the fir about the involvement of any particular vehicle, it was only on account of the fact that he was confused and that he was not in a fit state to give proper evidence. one thing can be noticed that the tribunal was trying to match an assertion made by the petitioner that he was not in a fit statement to give statement while the police was giving an assertion that the statement was read out to him and he did not disclose the identity of the vehicle with reference to the registration number. there was no other eye-witness examined with reference to the involvement. the driver of the vehicle said to have been involved in the accident was himself examined as rw-2 and he gave evidence that his vehicle never met with an accident on 04.02.1996. he even denied that he drove tractor trolley and it is usually his driver harbhajan singh, who drove the tractor trolley. harbhajan singh driver was fao no.2310 of 1998 -3- not even made a party. with reference to the contentions regarding the involvement being contested by the respondent and the fir making no reference to the registration of the vehicle, the claimant would contend that he knew the registration number of the vehicle even at the time of accident but he was unwell to give a statement immediately following the date of accident. the best evidence could be only through the police official himself and that evidence has also been brought through rw-1. what is stated in the fir is sought to be vouched as containing an important admission that the claimant did not knot the registration particulars of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident. i do not even see the identity of the vehicle with reference to the colour of the tractor and the goods, which were supposed to have been transported through a trolley attached to the tractor. indeed there was not even a reference to the trolley in the fir.”2. the tribunal has on appreciation of all the evidence brought before it proceeded to hold that the involvement of the respondent's vehicle had not been established. the inference is founded on appropriate reasoning and i will find no particular circumstance to vary or modify the finding. the case must only be taken as a case in relation to death or injury in a hit and run accident and the benefit that the petitioners could have, would be only to secure a fixed compensation as provided under section 163 of the motor vehicles act. there is a requirement to make this application within a specified time and evidently such an application was not filed by the appellants only under the belief that they had a lawful case to prosecute under section 166 of the motor vehicles act with the particulars given in the petition. since the tribunal has already held, which decision i am not affirming, that the involvement of the vehicle has fao no.2310 of 1998 -4- not been established, even then the petitioner cannot be without compensation. they may be at least to secure the compensation as provided under section 163 of the motor vehicles act. the time taken before this court must be taken as on a bona fide prosecution and the death and that the injury must also be taken as resulting from a motor accident and identity of the vehicle involved in the accident could not be traced. the requirement of section 163 must be, therefore, taken by the state as having been established and if such a prayer is made, the state shall make the compensation as provided under section 163 of the motor vehicles act without further engaging the claimants in having to prove that death and injury were only on account of the motor accident and that the identity of the vehicle could not be traced. all the necessary facts for release of compensation under section 163 of the motor vehicles act must be taken as having been established in these proceedings through this order. if such a request is made by the appellants, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the state within a period of two months from the date when such an application is moved.”3. the appeals are dismissed but with liberty to secure the sums provided under the law in the manner as aforesaid. (k. kannan) judge january 16, 2013 pankaj*
Judgment:

FAO No.2310 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2310 of 1998 Date of Decision.16.01.2013 Sarwan Kumar son of Lutoria Ram .....Appellant Versus Balbir Lal son of Tarsem Chand and another .......Respondents 2.

FAO No.1694 of 1998 Karam Singh son of Lakha Singh and another .....Appellants Versus Balbir Lal son of Tarsem Singh and another .......Respondents Present: Mr.Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the appellants.

None for the respondents.

CORAM:HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.

KANNAN 1

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.

No 2.

To be referred to the Reporters or No.?.

No 3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

No -.- K.

KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1.

The appeals are at the instance of the claimants against the respective orders dismissing the claim petitions on the ground that the claimants had not established that the respondent's vehicle had been involved in the accident.

The accident had taken place on 04.02.1996 and FIR had been registered on 06.02.1996 on the basis of statement said to have been given by one of the claimants, who has been examined in this case as PW1.

In the statement purported to have been given, it was recited that it was an unknown vehicle which was involved in the accident.

The petitions claiming compensation had been filed on 28.02.1996 and 29.02.1996 and still later on 25.05.1996, a complaint had been given to the FAO No.2310 of 1998 -2- police officials setting out information about the identity of the vehicle, which was said to have been involved in the accident but it appears that the police had closed the file referring to the investigation as not revealing the identity of any particular vehicle as having been involved in the accident.

At the trial, the evidence is given by the doctor, who treated him that at the time when PW1 was admitted, he was still confused and this was used by the claimant to contend that he was not in a fit state to give a statement to the police.

RW-1 was the Investigating Officer, who gave evidence to the effect that at the time when the statement was recorded, which was the basis for lodging the FIR, PW1 did not give any details of the vehicle involved in the accident and before his signature was taken to the statement at the time of registration of the FIR, it was read out to him and he had acknowledged the same to be correct.

This was a manner of explanation to the contention raised by the claimant that if there were no particulars given in the FIR about the involvement of any particular vehicle, it was only on account of the fact that he was confused and that he was not in a fit state to give proper evidence.

One thing can be noticed that the Tribunal was trying to match an assertion made by the petitioner that he was not in a fit statement to give statement while the police was giving an assertion that the statement was read out to him and he did not disclose the identity of the vehicle with reference to the registration number.

There was no other eye-witness examined with reference to the involvement.

The driver of the vehicle said to have been involved in the accident was himself examined as RW-2 and he gave evidence that his vehicle never met with an accident on 04.02.1996.

He even denied that he drove tractor trolley and it is usually his driver Harbhajan Singh, who drove the tractor trolley.

Harbhajan Singh driver was FAO No.2310 of 1998 -3- not even made a party.

With reference to the contentions regarding the involvement being contested by the respondent and the FIR making no reference to the registration of the vehicle, the claimant would contend that he knew the registration number of the vehicle even at the time of accident but he was unwell to give a statement immediately following the date of accident.

The best evidence could be only through the police official himself and that evidence has also been brought through RW-1.

What is stated in the FIR is sought to be vouched as containing an important admission that the claimant did not knot the registration particulars of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident.

I do not even see the identity of the vehicle with reference to the colour of the tractor and the goods, which were supposed to have been transported through a trolley attached to the tractor.

Indeed there was not even a reference to the trolley in the FIR.”

2. The Tribunal has on appreciation of all the evidence brought before it proceeded to hold that the involvement of the respondent's vehicle had not been established.

The inference is founded on appropriate reasoning and I will find no particular circumstance to vary or modify the finding.

The case must only be taken as a case in relation to death or injury in a hit and run accident and the benefit that the petitioners could have, would be only to secure a fixed compensation as provided under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

There is a requirement to make this application within a specified time and evidently such an application was not filed by the appellants only under the belief that they had a lawful case to prosecute under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act with the particulars given in the petition.

Since the Tribunal has already held, which decision I am not affirming, that the involvement of the vehicle has FAO No.2310 of 1998 -4- not been established, even then the petitioner cannot be without compensation.

They may be at least to secure the compensation as provided under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The time taken before this Court must be taken as on a bona fide prosecution and the death and that the injury must also be taken as resulting from a motor accident and identity of the vehicle involved in the accident could not be traced.

The requirement of Section 163 must be, therefore, taken by the State as having been established and if such a prayer is made, the State shall make the compensation as provided under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act without further engaging the claimants in having to prove that death and injury were only on account of the motor accident and that the identity of the vehicle could not be traced.

All the necessary facts for release of compensation under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act must be taken as having been established in these proceedings through this order.

If such a request is made by the appellants, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the State within a period of two months from the date when such an application is moved.”

3. The appeals are dismissed but with liberty to secure the sums provided under the law in the manner as aforesaid.

(K.

KANNAN) JUDGE January 16, 2013 Pankaj*