Shobha Rani and ors. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/633273
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnOct-20-1993
Case Number F.A.F.O. No. 446 of 1992
Judge Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
Reported inII(1994)ACC389; 1995ACJ520
AppellantShobha Rani and ors.
RespondentPunjab State Electricity Board
Advocates: Deepali Puri, Adv.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
- amarjeet chaudhary, j.1. the motor accidents claims tribunal, jalandhar, on a claim petition filed by shobha rani and three minor children under section 110-a of the motor vehicles act held the claimants entitled to a sum of rs. 3,84,000/-. however, after holding that it was a case of contributory negligence it awarded a sum of rs. 1,92,000/-. the tribunal directed that in case the amount if not deposited within two months, the claimants shall be entitled to 12 per cent interest from the date of the application till realisation. dissatisfied by the award of the motor accidents claims tribunal, claimants filed the present appeal.2. it was contended that no negligence could be attributed to the owner-driver of the maruti car no. chc 4947 and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of truck no. pns 4248. counsel for the appellants further contended that the interest on compensation should have been awarded from the date of application.3. i have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. in the case in hand, late bhim sen, a high court employee, died in an accident on 31.7.1989 which is not disputed. the only question which has cropped up for consideration is the quantum of compensation.4. the claimants in order to prove their case had produced darshan singh, pw 7 and salim, pw 8, alleged witnesses of the occurrence. the motor accidents claims tribunal, however, did not believe the testimony of darshan singh, pw 7, for the reason that darshan singh had reached the place of occurrence after the accident had taken place. however, the tribunal believed the testimony of salim, pw 8, who was one of the occupants of car no. chc 4947 in which bhim sen was travelling and had died as a result of the accident. while deciding the issue the tribunal believed the testimony of darshan singh and held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of avtar singh, truck driver.5. on consideration of the matter, i find that while deciding the claim petition, the tribunal did not believe the testimony of darshan singh, pw 7, for the reason that the said witness had reached the place of occurrence after the accident had taken place. it is not understandable while deciding the question of negligence how the testimony of darshan singh, pw 7, was believed. as such, i find infirmity in the judgment and award of the motor accidents claims tribunal while deciding the claim petition. salim, pw 8, was one of the ill-fated persons in car no. chc 4947 and had received injuries in the said accident and the testimony of this witness cannot be discarded in any manner. the testimony of salim, pw 8, should have been believed as he was the person who could testify that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the truck driver. adverting to the statement, salim, pw 8, in cross-examination, had made it clear that the truck after it had collided with the car, had dragged the car towards jalandhar up to some distance towards left side if one comes from kapurthala towards jalandhar. after scanning the statement of salim, pw 8 and on examining the photographs, it will be seen that the car driver had not gone to the extreme right. rather after the truck had collided with the car, it had dragged the car to some distance and had brought it to the extreme right of the road. thus, it is a case in which no fault of the driver of the maruti car no. chc 4947 can be found.6. in this view of the matter, finding of the tribunal on issue no. 1 that the accident in question, which resulted in the death of bhim sen, was caused due to contributory negligence of both the drivers of truck and maruti car, is reversed. keeping in view the statement of salim, pw 8 and on examining the photographs, it can be safely concluded that the accident had taken place as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck no. pns 4248 by its driver, avtar singh, respondent no. 2. the claimants are held entitled to rs. 3,84,000/- as compensation together with 12 per cent per annum interest from the date of claim petition till its realisation. out of the compensation awarded by this court, a sum of rs. 1,92,000/- already awarded by the tribunal is to be adjusted.there will be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar, on a claim petition filed by Shobha Rani and three minor children under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act held the claimants entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,84,000/-. However, after holding that it was a case of contributory negligence it awarded a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/-. The Tribunal directed that in case the amount if not deposited within two months, the claimants shall be entitled to 12 per cent interest from the date of the application till realisation. Dissatisfied by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, claimants filed the present appeal.

2. It was contended that no negligence could be attributed to the owner-driver of the Maruti car No. CHC 4947 and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of truck No. PNS 4248. Counsel for the appellants further contended that the interest on compensation should have been awarded from the date of application.

3. I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. In the case in hand, late Bhim Sen, a High Court employee, died in an accident on 31.7.1989 which is not disputed. The only question which has cropped up for consideration is the quantum of compensation.

4. The claimants in order to prove their case had produced Darshan Singh, PW 7 and Salim, PW 8, alleged witnesses of the occurrence. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, however, did not believe the testimony of Darshan Singh, PW 7, for the reason that Darshan Singh had reached the place of occurrence after the accident had taken place. However, the Tribunal believed the testimony of Salim, PW 8, who was one of the occupants of car No. CHC 4947 in which Bhim Sen was travelling and had died as a result of the accident. While deciding the issue the Tribunal believed the testimony of Darshan Singh and held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Avtar Singh, truck driver.

5. On consideration of the matter, I find that while deciding the claim petition, the Tribunal did not believe the testimony of Darshan Singh, PW 7, for the reason that the said witness had reached the place of occurrence after the accident had taken place. It is not understandable while deciding the question of negligence how the testimony of Darshan Singh, PW 7, was believed. As such, I find infirmity in the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal while deciding the claim petition. Salim, PW 8, was one of the ill-fated persons in car No. CHC 4947 and had received injuries in the said accident and the testimony of this witness cannot be discarded in any manner. The testimony of Salim, PW 8, should have been believed as he was the person who could testify that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the truck driver. Adverting to the statement, Salim, PW 8, in cross-examination, had made it clear that the truck after it had collided with the car, had dragged the car towards Jalandhar up to some distance towards left side if one comes from Kapurthala towards Jalandhar. After scanning the statement of Salim, PW 8 and on examining the photographs, it will be seen that the car driver had not gone to the extreme right. Rather after the truck had collided with the car, it had dragged the car to some distance and had brought it to the extreme right of the road. Thus, it is a case in which no fault of the driver of the Maruti car No. CHC 4947 can be found.

6. In this view of the matter, finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 that the accident in question, which resulted in the death of Bhim Sen, was caused due to contributory negligence of both the drivers of truck and Maruti car, is reversed. Keeping in view the statement of Salim, PW 8 and on examining the photographs, it can be safely concluded that the accident had taken place as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck No. PNS 4248 by its driver, Avtar Singh, respondent No. 2. The claimants are held entitled to Rs. 3,84,000/- as compensation together with 12 per cent per annum interest from the date of claim petition till its realisation. Out of the compensation awarded by this Court, a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal is to be adjusted.

There will be no order as to costs.