Present:- Mr. Vishal Gupta Advocate Vs. Major Singh and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1157260
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-03-2014
AppellantPresent:- Mr. Vishal Gupta Advocate
RespondentMajor Singh and Others
Excerpt:
fao no.4460 of 2010 - 1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh fao no.4460 of 2010 date of decision: july 03, 2014 vipin gir .................appellant versus major singh & others .............respondents. coram: hon'ble mr. justice jaspal singh present:- mr. vishal gupta, advocate for the appellant. mr. sham lal bhalla, advocate for respondent no.2. mr. d.r. bansal, advocate for the respondent no.3-insurance company. jaspal singh, j aggrieved against the award dated january 22, 2010 passed by the motor accidents claims tribunal, fatehgarh sahib (for short “tribunal), whereby, a claim petition preferred by the appellant under section 166 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (for short “act”.), was dismissed, instant appeal has been preferred.2. the appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated february 08, 2013. requisite record was requisitioned and received. sunder sham 3. while assailing the impugned award, it has been argued 2014.07.21 17:36 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh fao no.4460 of 2010 - 2- by learned counsel for appellant that claim petition has been dismissed by learned tribunal solely on the ground that claimant/appellant has failed to prove that he sustained injuries in an accident, which took place on december 24, 2005 at 6.30 pm in the area of mandi gobindgarh on account of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration no.pb23 8077 by respondent no.1 but the findings arrived at by learned tribunal are absolutely against the evidence available on file. the learned tribunal has discarded and disbelieved the sworn testimony of claimant/injured vipin gir as well as that of eye witness of accident pw-3 surinder gir without assigning any cogent reason. in fact pw-3 surinder gir tendered in evidence his affidavit ex.pw-3/a and has categorically deposed that on december 24, 2005, he came to mandi gobindgarh in connection with some work at about 6.30 pm. while he was standing near petrol pump, amloh road, mandi gobindgarh, he spotted vipin gir accompanied by two other persons passing thereby, on scooter. a truck bearing registration no.pb23 8077 being driven by respondent no.1 on a high speed, without blowing any horn, in a rash and negligent manner, while coming from back side struck against scooter of vipin gir. due to impact of accident, the persons riding on scooter fell down and sustained injuries. scooter was completely damaged. this statement stands fortified from the testimony of injured/claimant, who appeared in the witness box as pw-4. but learned tribunal has disbelieved their statements and dismissed the claim petition solely on the ground that there were contradictions in sunder sham 2014.07.21 17:36 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh fao no.4460 of 2010 - 3- the statements of witnesses and further that there is 4-5 days delay in reporting the matter to police and that author of fir has not been examined. it is pretty settled that depositions of witnesses are to be taken in to consideration as a whole and not by pick and choose and gist of testimonies of both the witnesses namely surinder gir (pw-3) and vipin gir (pw-4-claimant/injured) is that accident occurred due to rashness and carelessness on the part of driver of truck in question. so, the findings recorded by learned tribunal in this regard especially on issues no.1 and 2 and the dismissal of claim petition are absolutely erroneous and deserve to be reversed. the claimant is entitled to just, proper and adequate compensation on account of injuries sustained by him, by way of acceptance of instant appeal.4. learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned award submitting that since it is absolutely inconsonance with evidence available on file and settled cannons of law, it does not warrant any interference. the impugned award has been passed by learned tribunal while discussing each and every aspect, as well as evidence available on file including testimonies of eye witnesses. since, claimant failed to prove involvement of alleged offending truck in the accident, claim petition has rightly been dismissed by the learned tribunal.5. this court has given an anxious thought to the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.6. since, claim petition was preferred under section 166 of sunder sham 2014.07.21 17:36 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh fao no.4460 of 2010 - 4- the act, it was incumbent upon claimant to prove that he sustained injuries in an accident, occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration no.pb23c8077by respondent no.1. no doubt, claimant as well as surinder gir (pw-3) have made an endeavour to establish involvement of respondent no.1 as well as negligence on his part which resulted into accident but it remained a futile exercise as from the circumstances, their statements became suspicious, doubtful and unworthy of credence.7. the delay of 4-5 days in registration of fir is one of major factor. pw-3 surinder gir was admittedly known to claimant for the last 8-9 years yet he did not opt to report the matter to the police at the earliest. fir in this case was registered on the basis of statement of one navdeep kumar son of raj kumar resident of amloh. as per the contents of fir, surinder gir (pw-3) was not present at the time and place of accident. his name also did not figure in the fir as an eye witness. further, according to fir, got registered by navdeep kumar, one vishal dhir and vipin gir were riding on scooter at the time of accident. but to the utter surprise, neither navdeep kumar author of fir, nor vishal dhir opted to appear in the witness box to state about the accident. they are also alleged to have sustained injuries but no medical record was adduced. so, the presence of pw-3 surinder gir at the time and place of accident becomes highly doubtful. the claimant has also placed on record his discharge summary, in which history of illness is depicted as under: “alleged h/o rsa at about 7.30 pm on 24/12/05 when sunder sham 2014.07.21 17:36 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh fao no.4460 of 2010 - 5- patient was going on a scooter and was hit by another scooter, patients's right leg hit a truck coming from side (crushed) xxxxx.”. 8. a glance at the afore-said history of illness makes it crystal clear that when patient i.e. claimant was going on scooter, it was hit by another scooter and then patients's right leg hit a truck coming from the side. so, rash and negligence, if any cannot be attributed to driver of truck, as the scooter of claimant was hit by another scooter. for the reasons best known to claimant, these facts were concealed and by twisting a story and attributing rash and negligence on the part of truck driver, fir was got registered after 4-5 days by involving a truck no.pb23c8077 as well as its driver. moreover, it has also emerged in the statement of pw-4 vipin gir (claimant) that truck was detained by police after two days of accident, which is otherwise improbable as the fir was got registered by police after about 4 days i.e. on december 28, 2005. the statements of witnesses under section 161 of the code of criminal procedure were also recorded after the registration of fir, who also did not opt to appear in the witness box to support the case of claimant. all these facts have also been thoroughly discussed by learned tribunal and it was only due to said reason, depositions of surinder gir (pw-3) as well as that of vipin gir (pw-4/claimant) were disbelieved.9. this court is also of the considered view that there is nothing on record to come to a different conclusion than that already sunder sham 2014.07.21 17:36 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh fao no.4460 of 2010 - 6- arrived at by learned tribunal. the various contentions put forth by learned counsel for the appellant are without any force. so, no interference of this court is justified in the findings and conclusion arrived at by learned tribunal vide impugned award dated january 22, 2010.10. as an up-shot of discussion, this court does not find any merit in the instant appeal. as such, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs, whereby, the impugned award dated january 22, 2010 is upheld. (jaspal singh) judge july 03, 2014 sham 1. whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. yes 2. to be referred to the reporters or?. yes 3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. yes sunder sham 2014.07.21 17:36 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh
Judgment:

FAO No.4460 of 2010 - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4460 of 2010 Date of decision: July 03, 2014 Vipin Gir .................Appellant versus Major Singh & others .............Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH Present:- Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company. JASPAL SINGH, J Aggrieved against the award dated January 22, 2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for short “Tribunal), whereby, a claim petition preferred by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act”.), was dismissed, instant appeal has been preferred.

2. The appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated February 08, 2013. Requisite record was requisitioned and received. Sunder Sham 3. While assailing the impugned award, it has been argued 2014.07.21 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh FAO No.4460 of 2010 - 2- by learned counsel for appellant that claim petition has been dismissed by learned Tribunal solely on the ground that claimant/appellant has failed to prove that he sustained injuries in an accident, which took place on December 24, 2005 at 6.30 PM in the area of Mandi Gobindgarh on account of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.PB23 8077 by respondent No.1 but the findings arrived at by learned Tribunal are absolutely against the evidence available on file. The learned Tribunal has discarded and disbelieved the sworn testimony of claimant/injured Vipin Gir as well as that of eye witness of accident PW-3 Surinder Gir without assigning any cogent reason. In fact PW-3 Surinder Gir tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW-3/A and has categorically deposed that on December 24, 2005, he came to Mandi Gobindgarh in connection with some work at about 6.30 PM. While he was standing near petrol pump, Amloh road, Mandi Gobindgarh, he spotted Vipin Gir accompanied by two other persons passing thereby, on scooter. A truck bearing registration No.PB23 8077 being driven by respondent No.1 on a high speed, without blowing any horn, in a rash and negligent manner, while coming from back side struck against scooter of Vipin Gir. Due to impact of accident, the persons riding on scooter fell down and sustained injuries. Scooter was completely damaged. This statement stands fortified from the testimony of injured/claimant, who appeared in the witness box as PW-4. But learned Tribunal has disbelieved their statements and dismissed the claim petition solely on the ground that there were contradictions in Sunder Sham 2014.07.21 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh FAO No.4460 of 2010 - 3- the statements of witnesses and further that there is 4-5 days delay in reporting the matter to police and that author of FIR has not been examined. It is pretty settled that depositions of witnesses are to be taken in to consideration as a whole and not by pick and choose and gist of testimonies of both the witnesses namely Surinder Gir (PW-3) and Vipin Gir (PW-4-Claimant/injured) is that accident occurred due to rashness and carelessness on the part of driver of truck in question. So, the findings recorded by learned Tribunal in this regard especially on issues No.1 and 2 and the dismissal of claim petition are absolutely erroneous and deserve to be reversed. The claimant is entitled to just, proper and adequate compensation on account of injuries sustained by him, by way of acceptance of instant appeal.

4. Learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned award submitting that since it is absolutely inconsonance with evidence available on file and settled cannons of law, it does not warrant any interference. The impugned award has been passed by learned Tribunal while discussing each and every aspect, as well as evidence available on file including testimonies of eye witnesses. Since, claimant failed to prove involvement of alleged offending truck in the accident, claim petition has rightly been dismissed by the learned Tribunal.

5. This Court has given an anxious thought to the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

6. Since, claim petition was preferred under Section 166 of Sunder Sham 2014.07.21 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh FAO No.4460 of 2010 - 4- the Act, it was incumbent upon claimant to prove that he sustained injuries in an accident, occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.PB23C8077by respondent No.1. No doubt, claimant as well as Surinder Gir (PW-3) have made an endeavour to establish involvement of respondent No.1 as well as negligence on his part which resulted into accident but it remained a futile exercise as from the circumstances, their statements became suspicious, doubtful and unworthy of credence.

7. The delay of 4-5 days in registration of FIR is one of major factor. PW-3 Surinder Gir was admittedly known to claimant for the last 8-9 years yet he did not opt to report the matter to the police at the earliest. FIR in this case was registered on the basis of statement of one Navdeep Kumar son of Raj Kumar resident of Amloh. As per the contents of FIR, Surinder Gir (PW-3) was not present at the time and place of accident. His name also did not figure in the FIR as an eye witness. Further, according to FIR, got registered by Navdeep Kumar, one Vishal Dhir and Vipin Gir were riding on scooter at the time of accident. But to the utter surprise, neither Navdeep Kumar author of FIR, nor Vishal Dhir opted to appear in the witness box to state about the accident. They are also alleged to have sustained injuries but no medical record was adduced. So, the presence of PW-3 Surinder Gir at the time and place of accident becomes highly doubtful. The claimant has also placed on record his discharge summary, in which history of illness is depicted as under: “alleged H/O RSA at about 7.30 PM on 24/12/05 when Sunder Sham 2014.07.21 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh FAO No.4460 of 2010 - 5- patient was going on a scooter and was hit by another scooter, patients's right leg hit a truck coming from side (crushed) XXXXX.”. 8. A glance at the afore-said history of illness makes it crystal clear that when patient i.e. Claimant was going on scooter, it was hit by another scooter and then patients's right leg hit a truck coming from the side. So, rash and negligence, if any cannot be attributed to driver of truck, as the scooter of claimant was hit by another scooter. For the reasons best known to claimant, these facts were concealed and by twisting a story and attributing rash and negligence on the part of truck driver, FIR was got registered after 4-5 days by involving a truck No.PB23C8077 as well as its driver. Moreover, it has also emerged in the statement of PW-4 Vipin Gir (Claimant) that truck was detained by police after two days of accident, which is otherwise improbable as the FIR was got registered by police after about 4 days i.e. on December 28, 2005. The statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded after the registration of FIR, who also did not opt to appear in the witness box to support the case of claimant. All these facts have also been thoroughly discussed by learned Tribunal and it was only due to said reason, depositions of Surinder Gir (PW-3) as well as that of Vipin Gir (PW-4/claimant) were disbelieved.

9. This Court is also of the considered view that there is nothing on record to come to a different conclusion than that already Sunder Sham 2014.07.21 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh FAO No.4460 of 2010 - 6- arrived at by learned Tribunal. The various contentions put forth by learned counsel for the appellant are without any force. So, no interference of this Court is justified in the findings and conclusion arrived at by learned Tribunal vide impugned award dated January 22, 2010.

10. As an up-shot of discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the instant appeal. As such, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs, whereby, the impugned award dated January 22, 2010 is upheld. (JASPAL SINGH) JUDGE July 03, 2014 sham 1. Whether the Reporters of the Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or?. Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. Yes Sunder Sham 2014.07.21 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh