Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharam Chand vs Satbir Singh & Ors on 5 July, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084658
FAO-272-1993 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-272-1993
Reserved on : 18.05.2024
Pronounced on : 05.07.2024
Dharam Chand ..... Appellant
Versus
Satbir Singh and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Yashdeep Nain, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Upasana Dhawan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate
respondent No.4 (through VC).
Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate
for respondent No.6.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
1. The appellant has approached this Court impugning the order
dated 26.07.1990 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar
(for short, 'the Tribunal), wherein, though claim was assessed to the tune of
Rs.1,44,725/-, however, the same was declined on the ground that accident
had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant
himself, and thus, he was held not entitled for receiving the compensation
from the respondents as assessed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended
that on 12.01.1990, appellant-Dharam Chand was driving his Canter bearing
registration No.HR-20-4059 and was on his way to Bahadurgarh. When he
was at a distance of about 5 KM from Hansi towards Hisar, a Haryana
Roadways Bus No.HYT 9825 driven by Satbir Singh-respondent No.1 came
from the side of Hansi. The driver of the bus while driving it at a fast speed
and in a zig-zag manner tried to overtake a bullock cart and thus, collided
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084658
FAO-272-1993 -2-
with the Canter, as a result of which the appellant received multiple injuries.
He has submitted that the appellant became unconscious at the spot and
taken to the Civil Hospital, Hansi. He has submitted that during this period,
respondent No.1 in connivance with the officials of the Haryana Roadways
got the FIR registered against the appellant. He has submitted that the
appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of disability of 60%,
pain and suffering as a result of fracture suffered etc. He has submitted that
the appellant duly produced the evidence on record establishing the accident
caused by the offending bus, in which the appellant suffered serious
injuries, however, learned Tribunal misread the evidence on record and
thus, has drawn a wrong conclusion in rejecting the claim petition filed by
the appellant. He has submitted that the petitioner became unconscious after
the accident and taking disadvantage of the same, the bus driver i.e.
respondent No.1 in connivance with the Haryana Roadways officials got a
false and fabricated FIR against the appellant. He has submitted that in the
trial the evidence was fabricated and distorted by the prosecution. He has
further submitted that learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence
produced on record, found the case of the prosecution full of doubts and
thus, acquitted the appellant vide its order dated 16.01.1996. It is submitted
that the appellant suffered disability to the extent of 60%, but despite that
learned Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant on hyper technical
grounds. He submits that learned Tribunal rejected the claim of the
appellant relying upon the wrong site plan produced by the Investigating
Agency and relying upon the evidence that the truck was parked on its right
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084658
FAO-272-1993 -3-
side much before the occurrence of accident. He has submitted that the
appellant had became unconscious after the accident and respondent No.1
driver of the offending bus in connivance with the Haryana Roadways
officials had manipulated the site plan. It is submitted that the injuries
suffered by the appellant, his hospitalization and the expenses incurred for
his treatment were duly proved, however, learned Tribunal has illegally
ignored all the clinching evidence produced by the appellant simply relying
upon the site plan produced by the Investigating Agency in connivance with
respondent No.1, which is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. He
submits that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent
driving by respondent No.1 and thus, the impugned order passed by learned
Tribunal in rejecting the claim of the appellant being unsustainable in the
eyes of law, deserves to be set aside by granting compensation already
assessed by the Tribunal to the petitioner alongwith interest.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.6 has opposed
the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that
there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal. He
has submitted that as per the facts and circumstances of the case, both the
vehilces were coming from opposite side. He submits that from the site plan
produced, it is apparent that the bus was being driven by respondent No.1
with due care of his side, however, it was the rash and negligent driving by
appellant, who while overtaking the bullock cart had dashed his Cantar
against the bus. It is submitted that due to his own rash and negligent
driving, accident had taken place as observed by learned Tribunal and thus,
his claim for compensation was rightly rejceted by the Tribunal. He further
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084658
FAO-272-1993 -4-
submits that in these circumstances, present appeal being devoid of any
merit deserves to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has also supported the
contentions raised by counsel for respondent No.6 and has submitted that
the appellant himself was responsible for casuing accident as he was driving
his vehicle i.e. canter in a rash and negligent manner and as such he is not
entitled to any compensation, rather he has caused damages to the vehicle of
the respondent.
5. Heard.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is apparent that the accident had taken place on 12.01.1990, which
has been duly established. The only point raised for the consideration of this
Court is as to whether the appellant himself was responsible for causing the
accident or it was respondent No.1 i.e. the driver of the bus, who had
acutally caused the accident and lodged a false FIR of accident against the
appellant. Taking the undue advantage of the fact that the appellant fell
unconscious after accident, respondent No.1, driver of the bus lodged a false
FIR against the appellant while he was admitted in the hospital. The
appellant was tried by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi in the
said FIR, but finding no concrete evidence against him, he was ultimately
acquitted by learned Magistrate vide his judgment dated 16.01.1996 as the
prosecution case was found to be full of suspicions. As the present case is a
burnt case and no record is available on file, so this Court is deprived of
having perused the relevant documents i.e. site plan etc. of the spot prepared
by the Police, however, with the able assistance of learned counsel for the
parties as well as by perusing whatever record is available on file, this Court
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084658
FAO-272-1993 -5-
is of the view that the position of the vehicle after the accident depends
upon the force with which the vehicles involved in the accident collided
with each other. So it cannot be said with certainty that the driver of the bus
was not responsible for causing the accident as the bus was standing in a
right direction after the accident. The injuries suffered by the appellant were
duly proved by Dr. Ashok Arora, who had assessed the disability of 60%
on account of fracture suffered by him. The age of the appellant was found
to be 48 years, thus, the amount of compensation already assessed by the
Tribunal to be Rs.1,44,725/- is upheld and the finding of the Tribunal to the
effect that the appellant himself was responsbile for causing accident while
driving Canter in a rash and negligent manner is unsustainable. There is no
denial to the fact that the bus was full of passangers and there is nothing on
record to show that the Investigating Agency ever had produced any
passanger from the bus as a witness in the case.
7. In view of the above discussion, the finding of the Tribunal
rejecting the claim of the appellant holding the appellant to be responsible
for causing the accident being unsustainable in the eyes of law, is set aside.
Hence, this Court finds the appellant to be entitled for the compensation as
assessed by the Tribunal @ Rs.1,44,725/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of
realisation.
8. The appeal stands allowed, in abovesaid terms.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
05.07.2024 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
