Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjit Kaur Etc vs Harnam Singh Etc on 4 July, 2024
Author: Archana Puri
Bench: Archana Puri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-2390-1998 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 04, 2024
Gurjit Kaur and others
...Appellants
VERSUS
Harnam Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present: Mr.Hardeep Singh Dhillon, Advocate
for the appellants.
None for respondent No.1.
Mr.C.S.Singhal, Advocate
for legal representatives of respondent No.2.
Mr.Pardeep Goyal, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
****
ARCHANA PURI, J.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants to
assail the judgment of dismissal of the claim petition filed to seek
compensation, qua death of Surinder Singh, in a motor vehicular accident.
The facts germane, to be noticed, are as follows:-
That, on 24.12.1994, at about 7.00 pm, Surinder Singh started from
Nissing towards Karnal on Scooter bearing registration No.HRE-5411. He
was driving the scooter, at a slow speed, while observing traffic rules. When
he reached near kikkar tree bearing inscription No.106, at Karnal-Kaithal
road, the offending vehicle bearing registration No.HR-05-6625, came from
the side of Karnal, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, against the
traffic rules and struck against the scooterist-Surinder Singh, as a result
FAO-2390-1998 -2-
whereof, he fell down and suffered injuries, which proved fatal. The
accident was caused by respondent No.2-Mohar Singh, while he was driving
the offending vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner.
In pursuance of the notice issued, respondents made
appearance. Respondents No.1 and 2, who are owner and driver of the
offending vehicle, in their written statement, raised various preliminary
objections, with regard to the petition being time barred and claimants
having no cause of action and estoppel of the claimants from filing the claim
petition. However, the fact of accident, was though admitted, but it was
asserted that it took place due to negligence of the deceased. Likewise,
respondent No.3-insurance company, in its separate reply, besides taking
various preliminary objections, also asserted that the claimants have
received compensation from ESI. The case being a 'hit and run', provisions
of Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, are attracted. Also, it was asserted
about there to be collusion between respondent No.1 and 2 and the
claimants.
On merits, the status of the deceased being driver and his extent of
earnings to be Rs.3000/- per month, was denied. It is further stated the
vehicle in question was not involved in the accident.
As such, a prayer was made for dismissal of the claim petition.
After framing of the issues, to substantiate the claim, appellant-
claimant No.1-Gurjit Kaur herself stepped into witness box as PW-1 and
further, the claimants examined Partap Singh, an eye witness as PW-2.
Thereafter, counsel for the claimant, tendered into evidence, copy of post-
mortem report Ex.P1, site plan Mark A, photo Mark B and C and closed the
FAO-2390-1998 -3-
evidence.
However, respondents No.1 and 2 had initially made appearance
before learned Tribunal, but did not pursue the petition further and were
proceeded against ex-parte. Respondent No.3-insurance company had only
tendered into evidence, copy of FIR and insurance policy and closed the
evidence.
On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, the claim
petition was dismissed vide impugned Award.
Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, the
appellants-claimants have filed the present appeal.
In pursuance of the notice issued, contesting respondents made
appearance through their respective counsel.
Learned counsel for the parties heard.
At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the
appellants that the fact of accident and involvement of the offending vehicle
stand amply established from the testimony of PW-2 Partap Singh and also
from the contents of the post-mortem report and the FIR, which have been
brought on record. In the light of such evidence, coming on record, it is
submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have granted compensation, on
account of death of Surinder Singh, in a motor vehicular accident and fasten
liability upon the owner, driver as well as insurer of the offending vehicle.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents have
assiduously submitted that there is inadequate evidence, to establish the
factum and manner of the accident as well as involvement of the offending
vehicle bearing registration No.HR-05-6625, more particularly, the factum
FAO-2390-1998 -4-
of death of Surinder Singh, in the alleged accident.
Thus, it is submitted that in view of the scanty evidence, brought on
record, which also does not inspire confidence, learned Tribunal has
appraised the evidence in correct perspective and has rightly dismissed the
claim petition.
To seek compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, in the minimum, it is required on the part of the claimants to establish
the factum of accident and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle
involved in the accident and resultant death of the victim. However, the
evidence brought on record, do not establish about the manner of accident,
as projected by the appellants-claimants, in the claim petition.
At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that only two witnesses,
as such, have been examined by the claimants. PW-1 Gurjit Kaur, is the
widow of the deceased. Undisputedly, she is not an eye witness to the
accident in question. Though, she has deposed about her relationship with
deceased Surinder Singh and her relationship with remaining claimants, but
however, she has not deposed even a word, with regard to the manner of the
accident having taken place and also about the manner of herself having
come to know about the accident. Further, it is pertinent to mention that in
cross-examination, she had stated that she was informed about death of her
husband by the police. When it was informed, this fact, as such, has also not
come on record.
In this regard, further, the testimony of PW-2 Partap Singh, the
alleged eye witness of the accident, is of utmost importance. This witness
has categorically stated that in the year 1994, he was employed in Shristi
FAO-2390-1998 -5-
Agro Industries, Nissing and on that day, after finishing his duties, he
entered Kaithal-Karnal road. It was 7.30 p.m. and a tanker bearing
registration No.HR-05-6625, came from the side of Karnal and at that time,
a scooter, came from the side of Nissing. He further stated about the tanker
having hit against the scooter and consequently, the scooterist fell down and
died. However, nowhere, he stated about Surinder Singh to be occupant of
the said ill-fated scooter and that he had died. Rather, in examination-in-
chief itself, he stated that it was after about five months, the claimants had
asked from him, about this accident and he further stated that the accident
took place due to negligence of the tanker driver. This is all the more
important to consider, as PW-1 Gurjit Kaur had stated that it was from the
police, that she came to know about the accident.
Furthermore, it should be noted that PW-2 Partap Singh in
cross-examination, also stated that accident had taken place opposite to the
factory, where he was employed. Further, he also stated that only his office
was closed, at the time of accident and he came out, whereas, other
employees did not come out. He also stated that there were 100 workers in
the factory. He further stated that on seeing the accident, he did not stop and
went to his house. He also did not inform the police, about the accident.
Considering this manner, it is quite obvious that on the day of accident, this
witness had not met either the police or any other witness, to whom he had
disclosed about the accident.
This conduct, obviously, as observed by learned Tribunal, is not above
board. May it be so. Furthermore, his conduct, as such, is very doubtful,
when he categorically states about the specific date of taking place of the
FAO-2390-1998 -6-
accident. He stated that he remembers the date of accident by heart, though,
he further stated he does not remember the date of Diwali in the year 1996.
Furthermore, he also stated that he does not know the date, when, for the
first time the police met him in the present case. Further also, he stated in
cross-examination that he had disclosed about the present accident to the
police officials, who were talking about some accident, which he had heard,
when he was standing outside the police station.
The version, so put forth by this witness, is highly improbable.
It is most unnatural conduct of said witness, more particularly, when he is
mentioning the specific date of the accident, though, he does not remember
other important dates of the same year. This is required to be taken into
consideration, more particularly, when the said witness, has nowhere earlier
stated about knowing deceased Surinder Singh or having identified his dead
body, at the time of accident, or in the minimum, knowing the claimants, at
any stage, prior to the filing of the claim petition.
Not only this, the statement of the said witness, further has been
appropriately held to be falsified from the contents of the FIR, which is
Ex.R1. As per the version, coming forth in the claim petition, FIR bearing
No.375 dated 24.12.1994, registered with police station Nissing, under
Sections 289 and 304-A IPC. This FIR has come on record, which states
about the same to have been registered, at the instance of one Angrej Singh
and it finds mention that the dead body was of unknown person, lying on the
road side. Said Angrej Singh, being author of the FIR, could have been the
best person, to connect the accident with the death of Surinder Singh, but
however, he has not been examined, more particularly, when the criminal
FAO-2390-1998 -7-
proceedings were initiated and Mohar Singh, driver had faced the trial in the
criminal case.
Furthermore, another grave omission in the version of the
appellants, is the post-mortem report, which is Ex.P1. Though, it is stated
that it was of an unknown person and later on, the name of the deceased has
been mentioned, but however, close perusal of the Ex.P1, from the record,
reveals about the name of the deceased, to have been mentioned as Ranjit
Singh s/o Pritam Singh. However, the name of the deceased in the present
case is Surinder Singh. How this post-mortem report Ex.P1, stands
connected to Surinder Singh deceased, nothing, as such, is coming on
record. It has been very appropriately observed by learned Tribunal that
there is nothing on the file to show that Surinder Singh s/o Balkar Singh and
Ranjit Singh s/o Pritam Singh, are one and the same person.
Be that as it may be. Still, the appellants-claimants had an
opportunity to examine the Investigating Officer of the police station, to
establish about any connection of Mohar Singh, with the accident and that
Surinder Singh was the victim of the said accident. However no such, steps
had been taken. In fact, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for
the appellants-claimants submitted that claimants had filed an application
about the investigation not to have been conducted in fair manner, but
however, no such application has come on record. Even, PW-1 Gurjit Kaur,
widow of the deceased, has not stated a word, about the investigation to have
not been conducted in the fair manner.
In the light of the same, the submission aforesaid, is hollow and
does not stand substantiated. In fact, the post-mortem report Ex.P1, as
FAO-2390-1998 -8-
already observed aforesaid, does not stand connected to Surinder Singh
deceased.
Even though, during the course of arguments, learned counsel
for the appellants assiduously submitted that the fact of accident has been
duly admitted by respondents No.1 and 2, in their reply, but however, it
matters not much. Both the said respondents, during the course of the trial,
were proceeded against ex-parte. They did not have cheeks to step into
witness box and depose about the factum of the accident. Rather, their
conduct of remaining away from the Court proceedings, itself speaks
volumes about collusion on their part, to assist the claimants to seek
compensation.
In the light of the evidence, as discussed aforesaid, the conduct
of respondents No.1 and 2 is also established to be not above board and
raises doubt, about the admission of factum of the accident, as pleaded in
their reply.
In view of the aforesaid observations, learned Tribunal has
appropriately considered the evidence, brought on record and the fact of
accident as well as involvement of the tanker bearing registration No.HR-05-
6625 and its connectivity with the death of Surinder Singh, as such, do not
stand established.
Considering the same, the appeal sans merit and the same is
hereby dismissed.
July 04, 2024 (ARCHANA PURI)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
