Punjab-Haryana High Court

Nishan Singh vs Satyawan on 6 September, 2022

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                        216                                          FAO No.686 of 2000
                                                                     Date of Decision : 06.09.2022

                        Nishan Singh                                                    ....Appellant

                                                           VERSUS

                        Satyawan and Others                                           ....Respondents

                        CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

                        Present :    Mr.Jagtej Singh Kang, Advocate for
                                     Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellant.

                                     Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for respondent no.1.

                                     Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent no.3.

                         ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

The present appeal has been filed against the award dated

03.02.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Tribunal') dismissing the claim petition filed by the

claimant-appellant only on the ground that it was not discernible as to who

was the driver of the truck bearing registration no.HR-46-3783 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'offending truck').

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-appellant

has contended that the injured in the accident had categorically stated that

respondent no.1-Satyawan was the driver of the offending truck. The

statements of the injured, who were present in the truck at the time of

accident, had totally been ignored by the Tribunal.

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent no.3-Insurance

Company has contended that there is no evidence on the record to show that

respondent no.1 was the driver of the offending truck. It is further contended

that one Subhash was the driver, who handed over the offending truck, to JITENDER KUMAR 2022.09.07 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

respondent no.1-Satyawan without consent and permission of respondent

no.2, and as such there was no liability of the respondent no.3-Insurance

Company to pay the compensation.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 states

that respondent no.1 has no role to play in the present case inasmuch as he

was not the driver of the offending truck.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 25.08.1995,

the claimant-appellant was working with respondent no.2 - Safidon Co-

operative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd., Safidon - on contract

basis. On the said date, the claimant-appellant along with other workers

loaded 250 bags of fertilizers under the orders of respondent no.2 in the

offending truck at HAFED situated in Safidon Town for delivering these

bags to Dathrath Co-operative Society Ltd., Dathrath. It was further stated in

the claim petition that the claimant-appellant along with others were to

unload the aforesaid fertilizers bags at village Dathrath, hence, they boarded

the truck at the HAFED Godown. The offending truck was being driven by

respondent no.1-Satyawan and when the offending vehicle was going to

village Dathrath, Raja Ram and Sube Singh (other injured) were sitting in

the cabin with respondent no.1 whereas the claimant-appellant along with

other workers was sitting on the bags loaded in the truck. Respondent no.1

was stated to be driving the offending truck rashly and negligently and when

it reached at a distance of 1 km away from HAFED Godown from Sheela

Kheri side near Swastik Rice Mills of Safidon on Safidon-Jind Road,

respondent no.1, who was driving the offending truck at a high speed, lost JITENDER KUMAR 2022.09.07 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

control and as a result the offending truck turned turtle and the claimant-

appellant received multiple injuries.

The claim petition was contested by respondent no.1 stating

therein that he had not caused the accident and that he never remained in

service of respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 filed a separate written

statement raising the pleas that the accident in question did not take place

due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 and actually a cow

came running from right side of the road all of a sudden and in order to save

the cow, respondent no.1 took the vehicle to the wrong side of the road as a

result of which it turned turtle. It was further stated in the amended written

statement that Subhash was employed by respondent no.2 and respondent

no.2 handed over the truck to Subhash and gate pass was also signed by

Subhash. However, Subhash later on handed over the truck to respondent

no.1-Satyawan.

Respondent no.3-Insurance Company also filed its written

statement contesting the claim petition.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues

were framed :

1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash

and negligent driving of respondent no.1, driver of truck

No.HR-46-3783 in which the petitioner received injuries?

OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved in the affirmative to what amount

of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from

whom? OPP JITENDER KUMAR 2022.09.07 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

3. Whether the respondent no.1 was holding a valid driving

licence on the date of accident? OPR

4. Relief.

The following additional issue no.3-A was framed by the

Tribunal :

3-A. Whether Subhash son of Dhanpat resident of village

Bhag Khera was authorized driver of respondent no.2 of

the truck in question and he handed over the vehicle to

respondent no.1 Satyawan for driving the truck at the

time of accident as alleged in the amended written

statement, if so to what effect? OPR.

The Tribunal, holding that there was no evidence on the record

to show that respondent no.1-Satyawan had any connection with the truck in

question, dismissed the claim petition itself. Aggrieved by the said award,

the present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant.

In the present case respondent no.2, who is admittedly owner of

the offending truck, admitted in his amended written statement that the truck

was being driven by respondent no.1 at the time of accident. The factum of

the accident has not been denied, however, the manner in which the accident

took place has been denied. The stand taken by respondent no.2 was that the

offending truck was handed over to one Subhash who unauthorizedly

handed it over to respondent no.1. The Tribunal while dismissing the claim

petition of the claimant-appellant has totally ignored the deposition of the

claimant-appellant who categorically stated that respondent no.1-Satyawan

was driving the offending truck. Even in the written statement filed by JITENDER KUMAR 2022.09.07 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

respondent no.2, this is not a fact which has been denied though the stand

had been taken that he was not authorized to drive the offending truck. The

question whether respondent no.1 was authorized to drive the offending

truck or not would be a determining factor as to whether respondent no.3-

Insurance Company would get the recovery rights or not. However, the same

cannot be made a ground to dismiss the claim petition. Admittedly, the

accident took place and the claimant-appellant was travelling in the

offending truck. Once the factum of the accident is not in dispute, it is

incumbent upon the Tribunal to assess the compensation in accordance with

the law.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sunita & Ors. vs.

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. [2020 (13) SCC

486] has held as under :

"It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim

cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual

occurrence of the accident, has been established, then

the Tribunal's role would be to calculate the quantum of

just compensation if the accident had taken place by

reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle

and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly

bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while

deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents,

the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of

preponderance of probability and not the strict standard

JITENDER KUMAR 2022.09.07 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed

in criminal cases."