Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Rattan vs Dharmender And Anr on 6 December, 2022
FAO-1342-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-1342-2017
Date of Decision: December 6, 2022
Sh. Ram Rattan ... Appellant
Versus
Dharmender and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Lekh Raj Nandal, Advocate for the appellant.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.(Oral)
This appeal is directed against the Award dated 21.05.2016
passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, whereby
claim petition No.72 of 2014 titled as "Ram Rattan vs Dharmender and
another" filed by appellant-claimant seeking compensation for injuries
sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident, was dismissed.
2. Facts
, in brief, as pleaded by the appellant-claimant are that
he is a mason. On 08.10.2013, after finishing his construction work at
village Chamaria, as he was moving towards Rohtak on his cycle through
Nasirpur road, a three-wheeler bearing registration No.HR-46C-3870
came from opposite side being driven by respondent No.1 at high speed
and in rash & negligent manner and hit his cycle. Due to the impact of the
accident, appellant-claimant sustained injuries. Sombir, who was coming
behind him witnessed the accident and shifted him to the hospital. FIR
No.365 dated 09.10.2013 u/s 279, 336 & 337 IPC was registered at
Police Station Rohtak Sadar on the statement of the appellant-claimant
himself. Appellant-claimant submitted further that inadvertently, he
Page no.1 out of 7 pages
1 of 7
FAO-1342-2017
mentioned the registration number of the offending three-wheeler as HR-
46B-1404, instead of HR-46C-3870, in the FIR. He became disabled on
account of the injuries and was deprived of his income. He sought
compensation of ₹30,00,000/-.
3. Respondent No.1 i.e. driver-cum-owner denied the
involvement of his vehicle and opposed the claim petition. Respondent
No.2-Insurance Company also denied the accident as well as involvement
of the offending vehicle. It was further pleaded that in case factum of
accident and involvement of the offending vehicle is proved, even then it
was not liable to indemnify the owner- respondent No.1, as he was not
having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle.
4. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the
parties was taken on record. Learned Tribunal on analysing the evidence
came to the conclusion that appellant-claimant had failed to prove the
involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and so, decided the
issue pertaining to negligence against the appellant-claimant. No finding
was recorded on other issues in view of the finding on the issue
pertaining to negligence. The claim petition was accordingly dismissed.
5. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant-claimant that
evidence of PW4 has not been considered by the Tribunal despite the fact
that he was a material witness being and eye witness and who specifically
deposed about the involvement of three-wheeler bearing registration
No.HR-46C-3870. The Tribunal wrongly relied upon the evidence led by
the respondents. With these submissions, prayer is made to set aside the
impugned Award and to grant compensation to the appellant-claimant.
Page no.2 out of 7 pages
2 of 7
FAO-1342-2017
6. I have considered submission of learned counsel for the
appellant and have also perused the record.
7. As per settled position of law, mere filing of the challan and
framing of the charge and even recording the judgment of conviction by
the criminal Court is not sufficient to hold that accident was caused by
the vehicle mentioned in the petition. Onus is upon the petitioners,
seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to
prove that accident was caused due to rash or negligent driving of the
respondent-driver.
8. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Minu B. Mehta
and another Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan 1977 A.C.J. 118,
wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is incumbent
upon the claimants to prove negligence before the owner or insurance
company could be held liable for compensation because the liability of
owner of vehicle to compensate the victim is based on law of Tort.
Hon'ble Supreme Court held further that if compensation is awarded
without proof of negligence, it would lead to strange results. Further, the
concept of vicarious liability without any negligence is opposed to the
basic principles of law.
9. In Chameli Devi Vs. Mukesh 2016 ACJ 27 (P&H), it has
been held that the fact of driver facing trial in a criminal case in relation
to the accident and the finding arrived therein would not ipso facto
establish any negligence on the part of driver.
10. In Mukesh Devi Vs. Sandeep 2018 (2) RCR (Civil) 629
(P&H), it was held that in a petition filed under Section 166 of Motor
Page no.3 out of 7 pages
3 of 7
FAO-1342-2017
Vehicles Act, initial onus is always upon the petitioners to prove the
negligence of the offending vehicle. Mere filing of the challan against
respondent no.1, facing of the trial by him or even the conviction
recorded in criminal proceedings, cannot be sufficient to hold him
responsible for causing the accident in the absence of any evidence
produced in the petition. This High Court held further that result of
criminal proceedings should not affect claim proceedings under the
Motor Vehicles Act and rather, it is to be established on the evidence
produced.
11. In Ram Karan Vs. Zile Singh, 2001 (3) RCR ( Civil)
(P&H) 582, it was held that mere an FIR, framing of charge and even
judgment of conviction or acquittal of criminal court is not binding on
the Tribunal and that onus of proving negligence is always upon the
claimants and they have to discharge it before the Tribunal.
12. In Anguri Devi v. Lakhvinder Singh 2017(3) PLR 86
(P&H HC), this High Court held as under:
"16. It is settled principle of law that mere registration of the FIR
and filing of the challan by the police in the criminal case does not
establish the negligence of the driver as the Tribunal is required to
act upon the evidence adduced before it. To support this view
reference can be made to case Ram Karan v. Zile Singh 2001(3)
RCR (Civil) 582. In a latest judgment titled as Kamlesh and
others v. Attar Singh and others 2016(1) RCR (Civil) 24, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that though the police has
registered a case against the driver of the Tempo and filed the
charge sheet but the same cannot be said to be conclusive."
Page no.4 out of 7 pages
4 of 7
FAO-1342-2017
13. In the light of above legal position, evidence on record of
this case is to be analyzed.
14. The accident took place on 08.10.2013 at about 6.30 p.m.
FIR was lodged on the basis of statement made by the appellant-claimant
himself, wherein he specifically disclosed the registration number of the
offending vehicle to be HR-46B-1404. It was further stated in the FIR
that accident was also witnessed by Sombir s/o Ram Kumar.
15. Appellant-claimant Ram Rattan, when entered the witness
box as PW1, disclosed during his cross-examination that he himself had
noticed the registration number of the offending vehicle to be HR-46B-
1404 and the same was not disclosed to him by anybody else. In later part
of his cross-examination, PW1 Ram Rattan says that correct number of
the offending vehicle to be HR-46-C-3870 was disclosed to him by one
Surajmal. This Surajmal, to be the eye witness of the accident, has been
introduced for the first time by the appellant-claimant during his cross-
examination. Although, PW1 says that in the evening of 09.10.2013
itself, he had come to know that registration number of the offending
vehicle was HR-46C-3870 but he did not approach the police prior to
30.11.2013. It is only on 30.11.2013 that he made supplementary
statement before the police to the effect that correct number of the
offending vehicle was HR-46C-3870. He further stated that owner of the
said vehicle had approached him.
16. Interestingly, Surajmal, who is stated to have disclosed to the
appellant-claimant the number of the offending vehicle to be HR-46C-
3870, has not been examined by the appellant-claimant. It is only Sombir,
Page no.5 out of 7 pages
5 of 7
FAO-1342-2017
also referred as an eye witness in the FIR, who was produced as PW4. In
his affidavit tendered as examination-in-chief, said Sombir disclosed the
registration number of the offending vehicle to be HR-46C-3870 and in
his cross-examination, he says that he had noted the said registration at
the spot itself. He further says that he did not make any statement to the
police. However, respondents in their cross-examination examined Shri
Jatinder, Criminal Ahlmad to the Court of learned JMIC, Rohtak, where
the trial of the criminal case was pending, who proved documents Ex.R-2
to R-9. PW4 Sombir had made a statement before the police (copy Ex.R-
2) on 9.10.2013 itself, in which he clearly stated that number of the
offending vehicle was HR-46B-1404. Thus, the statement made by him
before the Tribunal that he had noted at the spot registration number of
the offending vehicle to be HR-46C-3870 is not at all reliable.
17. As per statement of RW1, witnesses Surajmal and Naresh
had been given up by the prosecution on the ground that they had
colluded with the accused and that Ram Rattan had not appeared in the
witness box despite service several times.
18. A perusal of the police challan also reveals that it is on
30.11.2013 i.e. after one month and 21 days of the accident that
appellant-claimant had made a supplementary statement to the effect that
correct number of the offending vehicle was HR-46C-3870.
19. It is also important to notice that Surajmal, who was
introduced by the appellant-claimant to be the eye witness of the accident
and who allegedly told him the correct registration number of the
offending vehicle is none else than the father of respondent No.1
Page no.6 out of 7 pages
6 of 7
FAO-1342-2017
Dharmender. It is, thus, clear that a friendly match was being played
between the appellant-claimant and respondent No.1 in order to extract
compensation from the Insurance Company. At the instance of Surajmal,
the father of respondent No.1 i.e. driver-cum-owner, vehicle number HR-
46C-3870 was introduced to be offending vehicle and then, said Surajmal
did not appear in the witness box in the criminal trial in order to ensure
the acquittal of Dharmender.
20. Learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on
record and has rightly dismissed the claim petition by disbelieving the
version of the appellant-claimant. It has been rightly held that the
appellant-claimant failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle bearing
registration No.HR-46C-3870 in the accident. The claim petition has
been rightly rejected.
21. As such, finding the present appeal to be devoid of merits,
the same is hereby dismissed.
December 6 , 2022 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
sarita JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Page no.7 out of 7 pages
7 of 7
