Present: Mr. R.C.Kapoor Advocate Vs. Raj Kumar and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1130644
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-12-2014
AppellantPresent: Mr. R.C.Kapoor Advocate
RespondentRaj Kumar and Others
Excerpt:
fao no.3636 of 2011(o&m) 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh date of decision:12.02.2014 1. fao no.3636 of 2011(o&m) the national insurance company ltd........appellant versus raj kumar and others ........respondents fao nos.3637 of 2011(o&m) the national insurance company ltd........appellant versus smt. meenu and others ........respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice ajay tewari present: mr.r.c.kapoor, advocate for the appellant/s. mr.vaibhav jain, advocate for respondents no.1 to 4. mr.sandeep goyat, advocate for respondents no.5 and 6. **** 1. whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2. to be referred to the reporters or not?. 3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. ajay tewari, j. (oral).these two appeals have been filed by the insurer against the award nagpal sunita 2014.03.04 12:40 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao no.3636 of 2011(o&m) 2 dated 28.2.2011 passed by the mact, hisar. both the appeals have arisen out of the claim petitions having been filed in respect of the same accident. since common questions of law and facts are involved, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. facts are being taken from fao no.3636 of 2011. brief facts of the case are that on 24.8.2009 claimant raj kumar along with his son joginder was going on motor cycle bearing no.hr-20j/7585 from hisar city to mirzapur. he was driving the motor cycle and his son joginder was riding the pillion. at 4.30 p.m.a truck bearing registration no.rj-31/ga-2062 being driven by respondent no.1 rashly and negligently came from behind and hit their motor cycle as a result of which they both fell down and sustained serious injuries. the claimant was taken to civil hospital, hisar whereas his son joginder was taken to amc hospital, hisar where he was declared dead after about four hours.claimant raj kumar was awarded a compensation of rs.26,600/-(i.e.rs.19600 for bills and rs.7000/- for pain and suffering) for the injuries sustained by him. learned counsel has argued that immediately after the accident took place one rajender who was driving truck no.hr-47-c-6742 had been arrested and possibly because of some collusion later the claimant has not impleaded him but has impleaded the present driver who in the written statement had denied that the accident had taken place. he has further argued that the eye witness deepak in his statement before the criminal court has also indicted the said rajender but before the tribunal he has changed his statement and stated that he had witnessed the accident having caused by nagpal sunita 2014.03.04 12:40 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fao no.3636 of 2011(o&m) 3 the driver of the offending truck. learned counsel for the claimants has argued that the question of involvement of rajender driver was put to raj kumar, the claimant who had explained the same to the satisfaction of the tribunal. as regards the alleged discrepancy in the statement of deepak before the criminal court and before the tribunal learned counsel has pointed out that the alleged discrepant statement was never put to deepak and, therefore, no opportunity was given to him to try and explain the same. as regards the denial of respondents no.1 and 2, he has stated that neither the owner nor the driver stepped in the witness box and the denial made by them in the written statement cannot be believed. after having heard the learned counsel i agree with the learned counsel for the claimants. though the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant do throw some doubt on the story propounded by the claimants, yet keeping in view the minor discrepancies as have been brought out above, i am not able to persuade myself that the preponderance of probability is not in favour of the claimants. in the circumstances i reject the suggestion that the accident did not place with truck no.rj-31/ga-2062 and the appeals are dismissed. (ajay tewari) judge february 12, 2014 sunita nagpal sunita 2014.03.04 12:40 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

FAO No.3636 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:12.02.2014 1.

FAO No.3636 of 2011(O&M) The National Insurance Company Ltd........Appellant versus Raj Kumar and others ........Respondents FAO Nos.3637 of 2011(O&M) The National Insurance Company Ltd........Appellant versus Smt.

Meenu and others ........Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.R.C.Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant/s.

Mr.Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.

Mr.Sandeep Goyat, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6.

**** 1.

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

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Ajay Tewari, J.

(Oral).These two appeals have been filed by the insurer against the award Nagpal Sunita 2014.03.04 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.3636 of 2011(O&M) 2 dated 28.2.2011 passed by the MACT, Hisar.

Both the appeals have arisen out of the claim petitions having been filed in respect of the same accident.

Since common questions of law and facts are involved, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Facts are being taken from FAO No.3636 of 2011.

Brief facts of the case are that on 24.8.2009 claimant Raj Kumar along with his son Joginder was going on motor cycle bearing No.HR-20J/7585 from Hisar City to Mirzapur.

He was driving the motor cycle and his son Joginder was riding the pillion.

At 4.30 p.m.a truck bearing registration No.RJ-31/GA-2062 being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently came from behind and hit their motor cycle as a result of which they both fell down and sustained serious injuries.

The claimant was taken to Civil Hospital, Hisar whereas his son Joginder was taken to AMC Hospital, Hisar where he was declared dead after about four houRs.Claimant Raj Kumar was awarded a compensation of Rs.26,600/-(i.e.Rs.19600 for bills and Rs.7000/- for pain and suffering) for the injuries sustained by him.

Learned counsel has argued that immediately after the accident took place one Rajender who was driving truck No.HR-47-C-6742 had been arrested and possibly because of some collusion later the claimant has not impleaded him but has impleaded the present driver who in the written statement had denied that the accident had taken place.

He has further argued that the eye witness Deepak in his statement before the criminal court has also indicted the said Rajender but before the Tribunal he has changed his statement and stated that he had witnessed the accident having caused by Nagpal Sunita 2014.03.04 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.3636 of 2011(O&M) 3 the driver of the offending truck.

Learned counsel for the claimants has argued that the question of involvement of Rajender driver was put to Raj Kumar, the claimant who had explained the same to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.

As regards the alleged discrepancy in the statement of Deepak before the Criminal Court and before the Tribunal learned counsel has pointed out that the alleged discrepant statement was never put to Deepak and, therefore, no opportunity was given to him to try and explain the same.

As regards the denial of respondents No.1 and 2, he has stated that neither the owner nor the driver stepped in the witness box and the denial made by them in the written statement cannot be believed.

After having heard the learned counsel I agree with the learned counsel for the claimants.

Though the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant do throw some doubt on the story propounded by the claimants, yet keeping in view the minor discrepancies as have been brought out above, I am not able to persuade myself that the preponderance of probability is not in favour of the claimants.

In the circumstances I reject the suggestion that the accident did not place with truck No.RJ-31/GA-2062 and the appeals are dismissed.

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 12, 2014 sunita Nagpal Sunita 2014.03.04 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document