Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rani Devi & Ors vs Mohd. Iqbal & Anr on 25 October, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140661
FAO-8841-2014 (O&M) [1]
215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-8841-2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25.10.2024
Rani Devi and others
...Appellants
Versus
Mohd. Iqbal and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. Widow, four minor children and parents of Surjit Kumar, who
as per the case of the appellants was also named as Ashwani Kumar, have
filed the present appeal challenging the award dated 13.05.2014 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathankot (hereinafter to be referred
as "the Tribunal") vide which the claim petition filed by the
claimants/appellants has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the
present case, under issue No.1, it was held that the deceased had died on
account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-Mohammad Iqbal
but the claim petition was rejected solely on the ground that the person who
had died was Ashwani Kumar whereas the appellants/claimants were
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140661
FAO-8841-2014 (O&M) [2]
claiming themselves to be the widow, minor children and parents of Surjit
Kumar. It is submitted that the said Surjit Kumar was also known as
Ashwani Kumar and in spite of the death of said Surjit Kumar @ Ashwani
Kumar in the accident which had taken place on 11.01.2012 due to rash and
negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No.JK-02-J-7637, no
compensation had been given to the present appellants. It is further
submitted that the present appellants had filed an application under Order
41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC, i.e., CM-16054-CII-2015 for
leading additional evidence and a specific reference has been made to
Annexure A-2 which is the Death Certificate issued by the Health and
Family Welfare Department, Chief Registrar, Births & Deaths, Punjab, in
which in the column of the name of the deceased his name has been
mentioned as Ashwani Kumar @ Surjit Kumar. Reference has also been
made to Annexure A-3 which is the resolution dated 13.08.2014 passed by
the Gram Panchayat in the meeting held on 13.08.2014 in which it had been
observed that Surjit Kumar was also known as Ashwani Kumar and he had
died in the truck accident in Taragarh on 11.01.2012 and his name in the
FIR was recorded as Ashwani Kumar on account of non presence of his
family members at the time of the accident and reference has even been
made to the Ration Card and other documents of the deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the said
additional evidence is very necessary for the proper and final adjudication
of the case and in case, an opportunity is granted to the present appellants to
lead the said additional evidence, then, the appellants would be able to
establish that Surjit Kumar was also known as Ashwani Kumar and it was
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140661
FAO-8841-2014 (O&M) [3]
the said person who had died in the accident and thus, they would be
entitled to compensation. It is submitted that in view of the same, the
impugned award be set aside and the matter be remanded for a fresh
decision. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment
passed by the Delhi High Court in case titled as A. Rupin Manohar
Through Sh. S. Anandha Kumar Vs. Mohd. Ansari & others,reported as
2017(4) ACC 7.
4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that
even as per the findings under Issue No.5, it had been held that the driver
was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the truck and
has submitted that in case, the matter is to be remanded then, due
opportunity be given to the Insurance Company to agitate all the points,
including the point of them not being responsible for payment of any
compensation and also to lead their own evidence in rebuttal to the
additional evidence produced by the claimants.
5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book.
6. A perusal of the paper book would show that in the present
case, respondent No.1 who is the driver and owner of the vehicle in question
was duly served as had been noticed in the order dated 13.11.2018 passed
by the Coordinate Bench of this Court but no one had appeared on his
behalf and subsequently, in the order dated 01.10.2019, the said respondent
No.1 was proceeded against ex parte.
7. A perusal of the award would show that it had been specifically
held in para 10 under Issue No.1 that the death of the deceased, whose name
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140661
FAO-8841-2014 (O&M) [4]
was stated to be Ashwani Kumar, had taken place on account of rash and
negligent driving of respondent No.1, who was the owner and driver of the
offending truck bearing registration No.JK-02-J-7637. The sole ground on
which the claim petition of the present appellants/claimants had been
rejected was that the claimants/appellants had not been able to prove that
Ashwani Kumar was also Surjit Kumar, as the present appellants/claimants
were stated to be the widow, minor children and parents of the said Surjit
Kumar. It was the affirmative case of the appellants/claimants that the said
Surjit Kumar was also known as Ashwani Kumar and they are the one and
the same person and the claimants had lost their husband/father/son in the
said accident and that no person would falsely claim the death of one's
husband/father/son. Through the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27
read with Section 151 CPC, in which notice was issued on 19.08.2015 and
no reply was filed to the same, the present appellants have sought to
produce on record three documents including the Death Certificate which
had been issued on 08.01.2015 (Annexure A-2) by the Health and Family
Welfare Department, Chief Registrar, Births & Deaths, Punjab, wherein the
name of the deceased had been mentioned as Ashwani Kumar @ Surjit
Kumar and the said documents if proved as per law would substantiate the
case of the present appellants. The resolution dated 13.08.2014 passed by
the Gram Panchayat also reiterates the fact that another name used by Surjit
Kumar was Ashwani Kumar and that it was the said person who had died in
the truck accident which had taken place on 11.01.2012; the said resolution
is also sought to be produced as an additional evidence. The said two
documents are very necessary for the proper and final adjudication of the
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140661
FAO-8841-2014 (O&M) [5]
case.
8. The Delhi High Court in the case of A. Rupin Manohar
Through Sh. S. Anandha Kumar (Supra) after considering the fact that the
additional evidence which was sought to be produced before the Court was
necessary to determine the fair and just compensation, had permitted the
appellant therein to lead additional evidence before the Tribunal and had,
set aside the impugned award and had remanded the matter to the Tribunal
for recording of additional evidence and had further directed the Tribunal to
pass a fresh award after recording the additional evidence. Relevant portion
of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"28. This Court is satisfied that additional evidence is
necessary to determine the fair and just compensation to the
appellant and therefore, the appellant is permitted to lead the
additional evidence before the Claims Tribunal.
29. The appeal is allowed, the impugned award is set aside
and the matter is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal for
recording the additional evidence. The Claims Tribunal shall
pass a fresh award after recording of the additional evidence.
The amount already awarded by the Claims Tribunal and
paid by the respondent shall be adjusted in the fresh award to
be passed.
30. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 18
th September, 2017. The record of the Claims Tribunal shall
return back forthwith.
31. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the
parties under the signature of the Court Master.
Appeal Allowed."
9. This Court is of the opinion that the additional evidence sought
to be produced in the present case is also very necessary for the proper and
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140661
FAO-8841-2014 (O&M) [6]
final adjudication of the case and thus, the present appellants should be
permitted to lead the said additional evidence before the Tribunal.
10. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed and the
impugned award dated 13.05.2014 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and
the case is remanded to the Tribunal, Pathankot to pass a fresh award after
recording the additional evidence and after give due opportunity to the
respondents to lead their evidence to rebut the additional evidence produced
by the claimants.
11. It would be open to all the parties to raise all the pleas as are
available to them, in accordance with law. Both the parties shall appear
before the Tribunal on 18.11.2024 and would apprise the Tribunal about the
order passed by this Court and the Tribunal would thereafter proceed with
the matter, in accordance with law.
12. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.
25.10.2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
6 of 6
