Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kapoor Singh Etc vs Surinder Kumar Etc on 5 July, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083400
FAO-885-1986 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(101) FAO-885-1986
DATE OF DECISION : 05.07.2024
KAPOOR SINGH AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS
V/S
SURINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Rahul Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
1. By way of instant appeal filed under Motor Vehicles Act,
claimants have assailed judgment dated 20.09.1986, passed by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"), Jalandhar,
whereby, their claim petition has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the appeal, deserve to be
noticed.
3. On 19.09.1983, Balbir Singh, aged 22 years, son of the
claimants-appellants was travelling on a scooter and Amrik Singh was
sitting on the pillion. An oil tanker bearing No.PJA-2277, driven by
respondent No.1, struck against the scooter, resulting in his death. The
fatal accident was witnessed by Faqir Singh, PW2, and an FIR, Ex.
PW3/A, was registered on the statement of Gian Singh, ASI, PW3. The
claimants filed a petition before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/-, on account of death of their son, due to rash and negligent
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083400
FAO-885-1986 -2-
driving by respondent No.1. Claim petition was contested by the
respondents and was dismissed by the judgment impugned herein.
3. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
4. The claimants produced four witnesses in support of their case.
Dr. Vijay Kumar, PW1, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, in his
examination, described the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased and
opined that the injuries can be a result of the vehicular accident. He
proved the post-mortem report as Ex. P1, and deposed that the death has
occurred on 19.09.1983, at 01.30 P.M., as per police record. In his cross-
examination, he categorically stated that the injuries cannot be the result
of a head on collusion, nor did the deceased suffer any head injury.
However, he stated that the injuries could have been sustained, if the
scooter, driven at a fast speed, skids and its driver falls on the road. Faqir
Singh, PW2, the second witness, produced by the claimants, claims to be
an eye-witness to the accident and testified that the oil tanker, which was
being driven at a high speed, struck against the scooter of Balbir Singh,
who fell and died on the spot. He further stated that head of Balbir Singh
was crushed under the tyre of the tanker and the tanker driver was
apprehended at the spot. His evidence is contrary to the medical evidence,
as the Doctor, PW-1, has stated that the deceased did not suffer any head
injury. A further doubt arises over the presence of PW2, at the spot, as he
claims to have stopped at the site of the accident for about 15 minutes, and
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:083400
FAO-885-1986 -3-
then left. He is neither the complainant in the FIR, Ex. PW3/A, which has
been registered by a police official, nor did he provide any assistance to
the pillion rider. Furthermore, the statement of the witness was not
recorded by the police at the spot, but recorded three days after the
accident.
5. Furthermore, the case of the claimants is that as a result of
accident, Amrik Singh fell on the other side of the road. However, the
claimants have failed to examine Amrik Singh, who would have been the
best witness to support their case. No evidence has been led by the
claimants to show that the scooter was damaged in the accident. Another
glaring fact is that after trial in the FIR case, respondent No.1, driver of
the alleged offending vehicle, was acquitted. All these factors
cumulatively lead to the conclusion that the accident, as alleged, never
took place and there is probability that Balbir Singh fell on the road and
succumbed to his injuries after his scooter slipped.
6. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the finding
recorded by the Tribunal, which are upheld.
7. Being devoid of merit, appeal is dismissed with no order as to
cost.
8 Pending application, if any, is disposed of.
05.07.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
Pardeep JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
3 of 3
