Krishan Chand And Another vs Jaswinder Kaur And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 16175 P&H

                            104         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                                 AT CHANDIGARH

                                                                      FAO-1670-2020 (O&M)
                                                                      Reserved on : 21.11.2022
                                                                      Date of Decision : 08.12.2022

                            Krishan Chand & Anr.                                          ....Appellants
                                                            VERSUS
                            Jaswinder Kaur & Ors.                                     ....Respondents


                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

                            Present :   Mr. Munish Kapila, Advocate for the appellants.


                            ALKA SARIN, J.

FAO-1670-2020

The present appeal against the award dated 21.10.2019 has been

preferred by the owner and the driver of the offending truck bearing

registration No.HP-66-1878.

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that early in

morning on 01.01.2017 Prem Singh (deceased) along with his wife,

Jaswinder Kaur, and sons, Manpreet Saini and Pardeep Singh Saini, and

nephew, Deepak, were coming in a Maruti car bearing registration No.PB-

08-AC-4520 from Baba Balak Nath Mandir, District Hamirpur to

Hoshiarpur after paying obeisance. The car was being driven by Prem Singh YOGESH SHARMA 2022.12.08 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh at a slow speed and on the correct side of the road as the weather was foggy.

At about 06:30 AM, when the car crossed Badsar and reached near Hariyal

Galu Sharma Dhaba, the offending truck bearing registration No.HP-66-

1878 was parked on the side of the road without switching on parking lights

and without encircling the same with bushes. As per the averments made in

the claim petition, the driver moved the truck to go ahead but immediately

applied the brakes as a result of which the Maruti car struck against the

truck. All the occupants of the car sustained injuries, however, Prem Singh

succumbed to his injuries. FIR bearing No.0001 dated 01.01.2017 was

registered at Police Station Badsar, District Hamirpur. It was claimed in the

claim petition that the deceased was 44 years of age and was doing the work

of auto repair on GT Road, Aslamabad (Hoshiarpur) and he used to earn

about Rs.30,000/- per month. The claim petition was contested though it was

admitted that FIR No.0001 dated 01.01.2017 under Sections 279, 337 and

304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 had been registered. It was averred by

the driver and the owner that the driver of the truck reached Hariyal Galu

Sharma Dhaba where he parked his truck on the left side of the road and on

the next morning at about 6:30 AM he was standing near his vehicle and he

found the car bearing registration No.PB-08-AC-4520 had come from

Badsar side at a high speed and struck the truck from the back due to which

the passengers of the car received injuries.

On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed

by the Tribunal :

1. Whether death of Prem Singh was caused on

1.1.2017 on account of rash and negligent driving of

Krishan Chand ? OPA YOGESH SHARMA 2022.12.08 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh

2. Whether respondent No.1 Krishan Chand was not

having valid and genuine driving license ? OPA

3. Whether claimants are entitled to compensation, if

so, to what extent ? OPA

4. Relief.

The Tribunal held that it was a case of contributory negligence

and, therefore, deducted an amount to the extent of 50% towards

contributory negligence. The income of the deceased was assessed as

Rs.9000/- per month i.e. the income of a skilled worker at the relevant time.

On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence on the record, the Tribunal

awarded an amount of Rs.8,26,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum as

compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been

filed.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the car

had struck the truck from the rear and, hence, it was a case of sheer

negligence on the part of the Maruti car driver i.e. the deceased. It is further

the contention that statement of RW1 - Krishan Chand - has been ignored

who had deposed that the truck was parked on the side of the road and

parking lights were on. It is further the contention of learned counsel that the

deceased was a semi-skilled worker and hence the assessment of income

@ Rs.9,000/- per month is on the higher side.

Heard.

In the present case it is undisputed that the truck was parked on

the side of the road. The wife of the deceased as well as an eye-witness had

deposed while appearing as AW1 and AW2 that the truck was parked on the

side of the road which was half on the katcha road and half on the metalled YOGESH SHARMA 2022.12.08 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh road. Both the witnesses were cross-examined at length and nothing could

be elicited from the said witnesses. The driver of the truck who had appeared

as RW1 though stated that he had parked the truck on the correct side of the

road and parking lights were on, however, he admitted in his cross-

examination that photographs were taken which would have been the best

evidence to show that the truck was correctly parked which were, however,

not produced. There is no reason forthcoming to disbelieve the statements of

the two witnesses of the claimants. The area where the accident took place

was a hilly area and the truck parked on the side of the road would create a

hindrance. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the argument

raised by learned counsel cannot be accepted.

The second argument raised by learned counsel for the

appellants that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the higher

side cannot also be accepted inasmuch as a categoric statement was made by

AW1 that her husband was repairing autos on GT Road, Aslamabad

(Hoshiarpur). However, despite lengthy cross-examination, nothing could be

elicited from her to discredit her statement.

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in

the award passed by the Tribunal. The present appeal is, accordingly,

dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

Dismissed.

                                                                                       ( ALKA SARIN )
                            08.12.2022                                                     JUDGE
                            Yogesh Sharma

NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

YOGESH SHARMA 2022.12.08 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh