Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs Madhu Dp And Others on 18 March, 2024
2024:PHHC:038817
C. R. No.1418 of 2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.146
Case No. : C. R. No.1418 of 2024
Date of Decision : March 18, 2024
Dinesh Kumar .... Petitioner
vs.
Madhu D.P. and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. Challenge in the present revision petition, filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 03.02.2024 (Annexure P-9),
passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for brevity -
Tribunal), whereby application filed by respondent no.4 - Insurance
Company, directing the petitioner to produce documents of bus bearing
registration No.HR-38-X-1080, has been allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case, necessary for proper adjudication of the
present petition, are that the petitioner is running a transport business. On
25.06.2021, one of his buses bearing registration No.HR-38-AA-0098 met
with an accident, in which son of respondent no.1 died. On the statement
made by sister of the deceased (respondent no.3), FIR No.385 dated
26.06.2021 (Annexure P-1) was registered against driver (respondent no.5)
of the bus, wherein she wrongly mentioned the number of the offending bus
MONIKA to be HR-38-X-1080. Later, on supplementary statements of respondents
2024:PHHC:038817
no.1 and 3 (father and sister of the deceased), it was mentioned that in the
said accident, bus No.HR-38-X-1080 was not involved. Rather, a bus
bearing No.HR-38-AA-0098, running behind bus No.HR-38-X-1080 was
involved.
3. Claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the
Motor Vehicles Act was filed by respondents no.1 to 3, seeking
compensation of Rs.80 lakhs and Rs.50,000/- on account of no-fault
liability.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that initially the bus
bearing registration No.HR-38-X-1080 was wrongly mentioned to be
involved as offending vehicle and later on, number of the bus was changed
to HR-38-AA-0098. Challan is also filed in the Criminal Court that bus
No.HR-38-AA-0098 was involved in the accident. At the fag end of
proceedings before the learned Tribunal, an application has been moved by
the Insurance Company to produce the documents of bus No.HR-38-X-1080
by the petitioner, being owner of the said bus, which has been allowed.
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner
and perused the case file.
6. No doubt, initially in the FIR, it was mentioned that bus bearing
registration No.HR-38-X-1080 caused the accident. Later on, on the
statement of respondents no.1 and 3, number of bus was changed. Since the
the said bus was initially mentioned in the statement of the complainant, on
which FIR was registered, so documents pertaining to bus No.HR-38-X-
1080 were necessary for just decision of the case. Since the documents
pertain to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if
2024:PHHC:038817
same are produced on record.
7. In view of the above discussion, no illegality or perversity is found
in the impugned order dated 03.02.2024 passed by learned Tribunal so as to
warrant interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, this revision
petition is found to be without any merit and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
March 18, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
