Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chaman Lal vs Gurvinder Sing & Ors on 29 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011724
FAO-199-1995 2024:PHHC:011724 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
207 FAO-199-1995
Date of decision: 29.01.2024
Chaman Lal .....Appellant
Versus
Gurvinder Singh and another ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present : Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sammi, Advocate for
Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Challenge in the appeal, filed by the claimant-appellant, is to
the award dated 16.05.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for short 'the Tribunal') vide which his claim
petition was dismissed.
2. This is a reconstructed case, as the original file was burnt in the
fire that broke out in the concerned branch in the year 2011. Since the case is
pending for more than 29 years, the counsel for the appellant has no
objection, if the same is decided on the basis of the available record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal
had committed an error by not holding the driver of the three wheeler as rash
and negligent in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant. It is
proved on record that he had received multiple injuries in the accident and
suffered permanent disability to the extent of 10% and thus, was entitled to
compensation.
4. Heard and perused.
5. It would be apposite to refer to the findings of the Tribunal as
regards the accident as well as the negligence in driving are concerned,
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011724
which read thus:
"5. ...............The above said facts also disclose that
due to the accident, one passenger died, who was sitting
in the auto-rickshaw, for which claim was filed and in
that claim petition, compensation has been awarded to
the claimants, implying thereby that the accident took
place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti
car by the claimant petitioner. Gurvinder Singh, who
was driver of the auto rickshaw, has appeared as PW1
and has supported the above said facts. He has also
produced the copy of judgment Ex.R.1. In view of these
facts, I find that the accident took place due to the rash
and negligent driving of the Maruti car by the
claimant-petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, not
entitled to file any claim petition in view of the law laid
down in the authority reported as Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd Vs. Ram Kumar and another, 1991 ACJ
1091, wherein it has been held that the claim tribunal
has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application,
which is filed by the driver for injuries sustained due to
his own actionable negligence and such an application is
not maintainable. Hence, the present claim petition is
not maintainable."
6. It is apparent that the Tribunal meticulously examined the
evidence and no glaring defect in the procedure or any patent error has been
shown to have been committed in ignorance of law, while arriving at the
conclusion aforesaid, which may have resulted in flagrant miscarriage of
justice. Thus, no intervention at the hands of this Court is warranted in the
finding recorded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the
three wheeler.
7. In the overall premise and as a fall out of the above, the appeal
is hereby dismissed.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
29.01.2024
Hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011724
2 of 2
