Gurbachan Singh and Another Vs. Gulzar Singh and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1156973
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-01-2014
AppellantGurbachan Singh and Another
RespondentGulzar Singh and Others
Excerpt:
fao no.21 of 1995 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh fao no.21 of 1995 date of decision: 1.7.2014 gurbachan singh and another ..appellants versus gulzar singh and others ..respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice kuldip singh *** present: mr.p.k.gupta, advocate for the appellants. mr.arun jindal and mr.rishav jain, advocates for respondents no.2 and 4. kuldip singh , j. claimants/appellants have filed this appeal against the award dated 4.10.1994 passed by motor accident claims tribunal, patiala vide which the claim petition of the appellants was dismissed. as per the case of the claimants, on 24.11.1991 at about 10.30 a.m.gajjan singh was proceeding on his cycle from bus stand patiala towards rajpura. he was going on the correct side of the road. when he reached opposite to vishkarma temple, a truck bearing registration no.pb-11b-9333, being driven by gulzar singh, respondent rashly and negligently, came from the opposite side and while going on the wrong side, hit gajjan singh. as a result of which, gajjan singh died on the spot. kumari meenu 2014.07.21 10:55 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh fao no.21 of 1995 -2- before the tribunal, gulzar singh, respondent was proceeded against ex parte. however, the other respondents contested the petition in which they denied the accident and controverted the allegations. from the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: (i) whether gajjan singh died in a motor vehicle accident on 24.11.1991 at about 10.30 a.m.opposite vishkarma mandir road at rajpura road, patiala on account of rash and negligent driving of truck no.pb-11b-9333 by gulzar singh respondent?. opa. (ii)to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to recover and from whom?. opa. (iii)relief. while deciding issue no.1, the tribunal held that involvement of truck no.pb-11b-9333 is not proved, therefore, claim petition was dismissed. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully. the tribunal recorded the findings of fact that truck bearing registration no.pb-11b-9333 was not involved in the accident. the tribunal took the view that narinder singh aw1, eye witness had merely mentioned truck no.9333 only. there could be truck of the same number with different series of the various districts ending with figure 9333. the tribunal relied upon the strong evidence in the form of statement of vijay kumar rw1, clerk at shambhu tax barrier of excise and taxation officer, shambhu, who testified from kumari meenu 2014.07.21 10:55 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh fao no.21 of 1995 -3- the record that truck bearing no.pb-11b-9333 entered on its way from guwahati to amritsar from the side of ambala and delhi on 29.11.1991. the tribunal also found that truck was loaded at guwahati on 21.11.1991 for delivery at m/s m.k.enterprises jawahar nagar batala road, amritsar. since the truck came from guwahati and on the way to amritsar entered shambhu barrier on 29.11.1991, therefore, it could not be involved in the accident on 24.11.1991 near vishkarma temple, patiala towards rajpura. patiala does not fall on the way to amritsar. the tribunal also found that gulzar singh has been acquitted by judicial magistrate ist class, patiala in the criminal case. therefore, on the basis of this documentary evidence, the tribunal found that the said truck is not involved in the accident. i am of the view that there is no rebuttal to the said documentary evidence. learned counsel for the appellants has failed to convince this court as to how the said documentary evidence could be discarded. the record of tax barrier shambhu shows that truck in question was not in punjab state on the date of accident. accordingly, i agree with the findings recorded by the tribunal. in view of the above discussion, the present appeal is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. ( kuldip singh) 1.7.2014 judge meenu kumari meenu 2014.07.21 10:55 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court, chandigarh
Judgment:

FAO No.21 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.21 of 1995 Date of Decision: 1.7.2014 Gurbachan Singh and another ..Appellants versus Gulzar Singh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH *** Present: Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr.Arun Jindal and Mr.Rishav Jain, Advocates for respondents No.2 and 4.

KULDIP SINGH , J.

Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal against the award dated 4.10.1994 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala vide which the claim petition of the appellants was dismissed.

As per the case of the claimants, on 24.11.1991 at about 10.30 a.m.Gajjan Singh was proceeding on his cycle from bus stand Patiala towards Rajpura.

He was going on the correct side of the road.

When he reached opposite to Vishkarma Temple, a truck bearing registration No.PB-11B-9333, being driven by Gulzar Singh, respondent rashly and negligently, came from the opposite side and while going on the wrong side, hit Gajjan Singh.

As a result of which, Gajjan Singh died on the spot.

Kumari Meenu 2014.07.21 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh FAO No.21 of 1995 -2- Before the Tribunal, Gulzar Singh, respondent was proceeded against ex parte.

However, the other respondents contested the petition in which they denied the accident and controverted the allegations.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: (i) Whether Gajjan Singh died in a motor vehicle accident on 24.11.1991 at about 10.30 A.M.opposite Vishkarma Mandir Road at Rajpura Road, Patiala on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No.PB-11B-9333 by Gulzar Singh respondent?.

OPA.

(ii)To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to recover and from whom?.

OPA.

(iii)Relief.

While deciding issue No.1, the Tribunal held that involvement of truck No.PB-11B-9333 is not proved, therefore, claim petition was dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully.

The Tribunal recorded the findings of fact that truck bearing registration No.PB-11B-9333 was not involved in the accident.

The Tribunal took the view that Narinder Singh AW1, eye witness had merely mentioned truck No.9333 only.

There could be truck of the same number with different series of the various districts ending with figure 9333.

The Tribunal relied upon the strong evidence in the form of statement of Vijay Kumar RW1, Clerk at Shambhu Tax Barrier of Excise and Taxation Officer, Shambhu, who testified from Kumari Meenu 2014.07.21 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh FAO No.21 of 1995 -3- the record that truck bearing No.PB-11B-9333 entered on its way from Guwahati to Amritsar from the side of Ambala and Delhi on 29.11.1991.

The Tribunal also found that truck was loaded at Guwahati on 21.11.1991 for delivery at M/s M.K.Enterprises Jawahar Nagar Batala Road, Amritsar.

Since the truck came from Guwahati and on the way to Amritsar entered Shambhu barrier on 29.11.1991, therefore, it could not be involved in the accident on 24.11.1991 near Vishkarma temple, Patiala towards Rajpura.

Patiala does not fall on the way to Amritsar.

The Tribunal also found that Gulzar Singh has been acquitted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala in the criminal case.

Therefore, on the basis of this documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the said truck is not involved in the accident.

I am of the view that there is no rebuttal to the said documentary evidence.

Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to convince this Court as to how the said documentary evidence could be discarded.

The record of Tax Barrier Shambhu shows that truck in question was not in Punjab State on the date of accident.

Accordingly, I agree with the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

( Kuldip Singh) 1.7.2014 Judge Meenu Kumari Meenu 2014.07.21 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh