Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gohla Rani & Ors vs Mithu Singh & Ors on 29 January, 2024

                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012419




FAO-4214-2013 (O&M)                         2024:PHHC:012419                      1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 FAO-4214-2013 (O&M)
                                                 Pronounced on : 29.01.2024


Gohla Rani and others                                        ... Appellants


                                        Versus

Mithu Singh and another                                      ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE

Present :    Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate
             for the appellants.
             Mr. Randeep S. Gill, Advocate for
             Mr. G.S. Nahel, Advocate
             for respondent No.1.

             Respondent No.2 ex-parte.

                      ***
RITU TAGORE, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment/award dated

04.02.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short

'MACT'), in which petition filed by claimants under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act'), for grant of compensation,

has been dismissed.

2. Relevant facts for adjudication of petition are as under:-

On 23.03.2012, Mohni Singh (deceased) along with Raju Ram

son of Sohan Ram, came to Sangrur to offer condolences for the death of his

relative. Both were going from Barnala crossing to Sunder Basti, Sangrur,

after purchasing goods. Mohni Singh was going ahead of Raju Ram, and

when he reached opposite side of the petrol pump on Barnala Road, Sangrur,

a scooter, make Bajaj Chetak bearing registration No.PB-11-S-7119

1 of 27

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012419

(referred to as the offending vehicle), driven in a rash and negligent manner

by respondent No.2 (Kuldeep Singh), came from the front/opposite side and

hit Mohni Singh, resulted in causing multiple injuries on his person. The

driver fled from the place of occurrence after abandoning the offending

vehicle at the spot. Thereafter, Raju Ram was informed by people gathered

at the spot that offending vehicle was driven by respondent No.2 (Kuldeep

Singh). Mohni Singh was rushed to Civil Hospital, Sangrur, from where he

was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. Unfortunately, on 02.04.2012

Mohni Singh succumbed to his injuries.

3. FIR No.65 dated 02.04.2012 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC at

Police Station City Sangrur, was registered against Kuldeep Singh

(respondent No. 2) in respect of the accident in question.

4. Upon appearance, respondents No.1 and 2 filed their separate

replies. Respondent No.1, in his written statement, raised legal objections

regarding non-maintainability of the petition and mis-joinder of necessary

parties. He also pleaded his no concern with the offending vehicle, having

sold it to respondent No.2 in the year 2009, who has been owner in

possession of the offending vehicle since then. Additionally, he denied any

involvement in the alleged accident, and by refuting remaining averments,

prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Respondent No.2, in his separate written statement, denied his

involvement in the accident and also asserted his false implication in the

criminal case and, in this petition. By negating all the averments made in the

petition against him, prayed for its dismissal, being denude of merits.

6. No replication was filed by claimants. On the basis of

pleadings, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

i) Was Mohni Singh killed in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of rash and negligent driving

2 of 27

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012419

of second respondent Kuldeep Singh of a scooter bearing registration No.PB-11-S-7119 owned by first respondent Mithu Singh at about 07:30 p.m. on 23.03.2012 opposite petrol pump, Barnala Road, Sangrur? OPA

ii) If issue No.1 is proved, are the applicants entitled to any compensation, if yes, to what amount and from whom? OPA

iii) Relief.

7. On appraisal of evidence led by parties, learned Tribunal ruled

against the claimants, concluding that they failed to prove that respondent

No. 2, caused the accident and resultant death of Mohni Singh, involving the

offending vehicle. Consequently, dismissed the petition filed by the

claimants.

8. In pursuance of the notice issued in this appeal, respondent

No.2 failed to appear despite service and was proceeded ex-parte.

9. Learned counsel for appellants contended that learned Tribunal

completely misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence presented. It is

stated that in cases related to motor accident claim cases, claimants are not

required to prove the case as it is required in criminal cases. Ergo, claim

proceedings are summary in nature, and averments in the petition are to be

established on the touch-stone of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore,

strict rules of evidence, as applicable in a criminal trial, do not apply in

motor accident compensation cases. Learned counsel submitted that learned

Tribunal, however, adopted parameters required in criminal cases to analyze

the evidence and committed serious jurisdictional error while dismissing the

claim petition.

10. Addressing this further, learned counsel stated that the

statement of Raju Ram (AW-2), an eye-witness, has been wrongly discarded

by learned Tribunal by observing that the witness could not have seen the

3 of 27

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012419

offending vehicle and its driver, who was on high speed, as the offending

vehicle must have gone out of his sight after leaving the spot, by the time he

reached there, walking behind at distance of 2/3 feet from the deceased.

Learned counsel submitted that witness Raju Ram (AW-2), specifically

deposed that offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No.2 in a

rash and negligent manner. He also testified that people gathered at the spot,

disclosed him the particulars of the driver. The learned counsel stated that

respondent No. 2, driver has not denied his particulars regarding his name,

parentage and address as detailed by the witness in his deposition and in the

FIR (Ex.A1). However, the learned Tribunal completely overlooked these

material facts and wrongly concluded that he (AW-2) was not an eye-witness

to the occurrence.

11. Learned counsel contended that learned Tribunal, also failed to

notice that FIR (Ex.A1) was registered on the statement of Raju Ram

(AW-2), which received support from PMR (Ex.A2), wherein cause of death

has been recorded to be road side accident.

12. Learned counsel further submitted that learned Tribunal failed

to appreciate that the driver of the offending vehicle, Kuldeep Singh (RW-1)

during his testimony admitted that he had been arrested by the police and

criminal case related to causing the accident and resultant death of the

deceased had been registered against him. This admission, learned counsel

contended, serves sufficient corroboration to the version of claimants. Also,

the other observation of learned Tribunal that the claimants, failed to present

the evidence of criminal case record, is also erroneous. It is stated that

learned Tribunal's duty is to assess the evidence presented before it; and

claimants led ample evidence to support their case, which indeed,

respondents failed to rebut.

4 of 27

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012419

13. Submitting in this regard, learned counsel contended that

conclusion and inferences drawn by the learned Tribunal are against facts

and evidence. A prayer is made to allow the appeal and set aside the

impugned judgment, with further prayer for grant of Rs.20 lacs to claimants,

by allowing their petition. To support his arguments, learned counsel for the

appellants has placed reliance on Ramphal vs. Baljit Singh, 2013(1) PLR

790; Sudama Devi and Other vs. Kewal Ram and Others, 2008(2) RCR

(Civil) 72; National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sanjay Kumar and

Others, 2011(2) RCR (Civil) 242; Kusum Lata and Others vs. Satbir and

Others, 2011(3) SCC 646 and Bimla Devi and Others vs. Himachal Road

Transport Corporation and Others, 2009(13) SCC 530.

14. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported

the findings of the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has

rightly appreciated the evidence. The claimants failed to establish their case,

even on preponderance of probabilities. It is stated that the claimants failed

to explain the delay in lodging the FIR. In this regard, it is submitted that

had Raju Ram (AW-2) witnessed the accident and taken the deceased to

hospital as alleged, his name would have been entered in the medical record,

prepared in respect of the deceased. By referring to PMR (Ex.A-2), learned

counsel contended that non mentioning of name of Raju Ram (AW-2) goes

a long way to discredit his version, having accompanied the deceased at

relevant time and had seen the accident. It is stated that Raju Ram (AW-2) is

relative of deceased. He is brother-in-law of deceased, therefore, has been

introduced as an eye-witness to the accident. His testimonial account has

been discarded by the Tribunal by taking into consideration the infirmities in

his version and other attending circumstances.

15. Learned counsel further argues that mere registration of FIR or

filing of charge-sheet against the driver of the vehicle does not, by

5 of 27

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012419

themselves, constitute substantive evidence of accident and driver's

involvement and the offending vehicle. The claimants must substantiate their

case on the strength of their evidence. The statement of driver-Kuldeep

Singh (RW-1), admitting the registration of FIR against him, does not

establish his involvement in the accident. Further, driver-respondent No.2

has alleged his false involvement in both, the criminal case and this petition.

The learned counsel argued that since claimants failed to establish the

foundational facts implicating respondent No.2-driver, with the offending

vehicle in causing accident, dismissal of the petition cannot be faulted with.

It is stated that there is no merit in this appeal and it should be dismissed.

16. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as

respondent No.1 and have gone through the record and the paper book.

17. The Tribunal based its' decision on several factors. Firstly, it

doubted the presence of Raju Ram (AW-2) at spot, since he did not lodge the

FIR immediately, after the accident. Secondly, there was no medical record

confirming AW-2's presence at the hospital with the injured-deceased,

undermining his claim of taking deceased to hospital. Thirdly, despite claims

made by claimants and Raju Ram (AW-2), crowd being present at the spot

providing details to Raju Ram (AW-2) about respondent No.2, no such

person was examined to support this. Additionally, Raju Ram (AW-2)

admitted to not providing a statement to the police about the accident, and

there was lack of other evidence, such as site-plan or recovery memo, to

corroborate the testimonial account of Raju Ram (AW-2) regarding

involvement of offending vehicle.

18. After reviewing the evidence on record, no illegality or

perversity is found in the conclusions drawn by the learned Tribunal. Firstly,

claimants have not provided any explanation, much less cogent explanation,

for, lodging the FIR against respondent No.2 belatedly, alleging his

6 of 27

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012419

involvement in causing the accident with the offending vehicle. The

statements of AWs are bereft in this regard. Prompt lodging of FIR by an

eye witness, stamps his presence at the spot, whereas undue and unexplained

delay undermines its credibility and suggests embellishment in the facts.

19. The FIR was lodged nine days after the accident without any

explanation for the delay from the witnesses. If Raju Ram (AW-2), truly

witnessed the accident as alleged, there seems to be no reason why he would

not have immediately reported it to police especially since he had the details

about the driver and the vehicle involved, furnished by the crowd gathered at

the place of accident. He could have informed the police available at the

hospital, where he statedly took the injured (deceased) after the accident.

The hospital authorities also inform the police about the arrival of road side

accidental cases. However, there is no medical record to establish that Raju

Ram (AW-2) brought the injured (deceased) to hospital from the accident

site, as claimed by him. Learned Tribunal has rightly pointed out these

deficiencies in the evidence of the claimants casting doubt on presence of

Raju Ram (AW-2) at the spot.

20. Further, Raju Ram (AW-2) did not give the names of the

persons, who allegedly gave him the particulars of respondent No.2. At

least, he could have noted their names. His vague statement has failed to

crystallize his version of being an eye-witness to the accident. Further, no

person has been examined, who saw the accident to corroborate the

statement of AW-2. Gohla Rani-AW-1 is not an eye witness to the accident,

so her testimonial account is of no use on the cause of accident in question.

21. It is surprising that neither any one from the crowd informed the

police nor police got to know about the accident, especially, considering that

accident occurred opposite to a petrol pump at about 7:30 p.m. when area is

usually busy. These facts and circumstances raise doubt about the claimant's

7 of 27

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012419

narrative. Still further, as per own case of the claimants, driver-respondent

No. 2 left the offending scooter at the spot. If Raju Ram (AW-2) had

witnessed the accident and informed the police, they could have collected

the offending vehicle, connecting the respondent No.2- driver with the

accident in question. The Tribunal has rightly observed the aforesaid

infirmities in the case of prosecution.

22. In claim cases, it is well established principle that evidence

must be tested on preponderance of probabilities. In present case, the

claimants failed to lead any reliable and cogent evidence to establish the

foundational facts of causing the accident by the driver-respondent No. 2

involving offending vehicle. Merely, registration of an FIR against

respondent No.2- driver does not prove the accident. The claimants must

present convincing evidence independently to probablize their version as

claimed. Respondent No.2-Kuldeep Singh, during his testimony as RW-1

explicitly denied his involvement in the accident, alleging his false

implication. Additionally, delayed lodging of FIR, nine days after the

accident without cogent explanation, weakens the claimant's case. It is

settled that evidence collected by the police in criminal case is corroborative

in nature. Nonetheless, supporting evidence like site-plan, recovery memo of

the offending vehicle have not been placed on record to corroborate their

version. There is no dispute on the principles culled out in the referred case

laws, cited by the claimants; however, same has failed to advance the cause

of the claimants in given factual matrix. It is held that the Tribunal has

rightly appreciated the evidence.

23. For reasons aforementioned, I do not find any legality or

perversity in the findings under challenge. Accordingly, present appeal is,

hereby, dismissed.

8 of 27

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012419

24. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of

accordingly.



                                                 (RITU TAGORE)
                                                     JUDGE

Pronounced on : January 29, 2024
Gaurav Sorot

               Whether reasoned/speaking               Yes /No
               Whether reportable                      Yes /No




                                    9 of 27

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012419






            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 FAO-4214-2013 (O&M)
                                                 Pronounced on : 29.01.2024


Gohla Rani and others                                        ... Appellants


                                        Versus

Mithu Singh and another                                      ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE

Present :    Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate
             for the appellants.
             Mr. Randeep S. Gill, Advocate for
             Mr. G.S. Nahel, Advocate
             for respondent No.1.

             Respondent No.2 ex-parte.

                      ***
RITU TAGORE, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment/award dated

04.02.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short

'MACT'), in which petition filed by claimants under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act'), for grant of compensation,

has been dismissed.

2. Relevant facts for adjudication of petition are as under:-

On 23.03.2012, Mohni Singh (deceased) along with Raju Ram

son of Sohan Ram, came to Sangrur to offer condolences for the death of his

relative. Both were going from Barnala crossing to Sunder Basti, Sangrur,

after purchasing goods. Mohni Singh was going ahead of Raju Ram, and

when he reached opposite side of the petrol pump on Barnala Road, Sangrur,

a scooter, make Bajaj Chetak bearing registration No.PB-11-S-7119

10 of 27

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:012419

(referred to as the offending vehicle), driven in a rash and negligent manner

by respondent No.2 (Kuldeep Singh), came from the front/opposite side and

hit Mohni Singh, resulted in causing multiple injuries on his person. The

driver fled from the place of occurrence after abandoning the offending

vehicle at the spot. Thereafter, Raju Ram was informed by people gathered

at the spot that offending vehicle was driven by respondent No.2 (Kuldeep

Singh). Mohni Singh was rushed to Civil Hospital, Sangrur, from where he

was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. Unfortunately, on 02.04.2012

Mohni Singh succumbed to his injuries.

3. FIR No.65 dated 02.04.2012 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC at

Police Station City Sangrur, was registered against Kuldeep Singh

(respondent No. 2) in respect of the accident in question.

4. Upon appearance, respondents No.1 and 2 filed their separate

replies. Respondent No.1, in his written statement, raised legal objections

regarding non-maintainability of the petition and mis-joinder of necessary

parties. He also pleaded his no concern with the offending vehicle, having

sold it to respondent No.2 in the year 2009, who has been owner in

possession of the offending vehicle since then. Additionally, he denied any

involvement in the alleged accident, and by refuting remaining averments,

prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Respondent No.2, in his separate written statement, denied his

involvement in the accident and also asserted his false implication in the

criminal case and, in this petition. By negating all the averments made in the

petition against him, prayed for its dismissal, being denude of merits.

6. No replication was filed by claimants. On the basis of

pleadings, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

i) Was Mohni Singh killed in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of rash and negligent driving

11 of 27