Piara Singh vs Swaran Singh Etc
2024 Latest Caselaw 18891 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Piara Singh vs Swaran Singh Etc on 25 October, 2024

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140853
FAO-333-2003(O&M)
        2003(O&M)

                                 1

201
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH
                                        FAO-333-2003 (O&M)
                                   Date of Decision: 25.10.2024
Piara Singh                                 . . . . Appellant
                            Vs.

Swaran Singh and others                                       . . . . Respondents
                              ****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
                              ****
Present: Mr Vivek Suri, Advocate and
         Mr.
         Mr. Dushyant Godara, Advocate for the appellant.

            Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate
            for respondent No.4-Insurance
                           No.4 Insurance Company.
        ****
SANJAY VASHISTH,
       VASHISTH J.(Oral)

1. Appellant Piara Singh, aged about 26 years, has filed the Appellant-

instant appeal by challenging the award dated 06.08.2002, passed by learned

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala Patial (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby

claim petition bearing MACT No.50T dated 29.08.1998 filed by the

appellant/claimant for seeking compensation on account of the injuries

suffered by him in the accident, has been dismissed.

2. By filing the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicle Act, 1988 1 (for short, 'the Act of 1988'), claimant pleaded that on

25.04.1997 when he was working as a Second driver on the harvesting

combine of respondets No. 2 and 3 ( Sukhdev Singh and Jaswinder Singh) in

the fields of Karnail Singh Rai in Village Suwah wala, P.S. Sadar Jalalbad

for harvesting of his wheat crop, crop Respondent No.1 No.1- Swaran Singh-Driver Driver was

on the wheels ls of the harvesting Combine. Claimant was standing in the field

of Sh. Karnail Singh Rai in order to check out a scheme for the proper

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140853 FAO-333-2003(O&M) 2003(O&M)

harvesting of the wheat crop. He was standing behind the stationary

harvesting combine alongwith Gurwinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh.

Suddenly, respondent NO.1 started the harvesting combine and drove in the

reverse gear without blowing any horn and giving any other si signal, gnal, rashly

and negligently. Resultantly, it hit the claimant who sustained multiple

grievous injuries on his person including abdomen and his liver was badly

damaged. Initially, claimant was taken to Preet Hospital, Jalalbad for

treatment, thereafter, hereafter, to Ferozepur and as his situation bec became critical,,

injured was referred to Daya Nand and Medical College and Hospital, Lu Ludhiana dhiana

on 26.04.1997,there he remained admitted from 26.04.1997 to 15.05.1997

and had to undergo major surgical surgi operation.

Thus, claimant pleaded pleaded that due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the Combine-respondent Combine No.1 , claimant sustained serious injuries

and d thus prayed for compensation. Claimant also pleaded that respondent

Nos.. 1 to 3 had connived with the police and therefore no FIR was registered.

3. After issuance of notice to the respondents, respondents No. 2

and 3, filed the written statement, but none appeared thereafter, as such they

were proceeded against ex parte. Respondent No No.1 .1 was also proceeded

against ex parte. Respondent No.4-Insurance Insurance Company also filed its written

statement and objected that claim petition is not maintainable. It also took a

plea that respondent no.1 was not holding valid and effective Driving license license..

On merits, all the averments made by the claimant in the claim petition were

denied by respondent No.4-Insurance No.4 Insurance Company.

4. After pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed following

five issues:

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140853 FAO-333-2003(O&M) 2003(O&M)

"1) Whether on 23.07.1997 Piara Singh received injuries due to rash and negligent driving of combine No. PB-11-H- 7204 driven by Swaran Singh, driver. If so, its effect? OPP

2.) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation.

If so at what rate and from whom? OPP

3) Whether the claimant petition is not maintainable? OPR.

4) Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding valid driving license? OPR

5) Relief."

5. To prove the pleadings raised through the claim petition, total four

witnesses appeared on behalf of the claimant i.e. Gurvinder Singh as PW1,

Kuldip Singh Rahi as PW2, claimant-Piara iara Singh himself appeared as PW3

and Harwinder Singh as PW4. Claimant has tendered into evidence disability ity

certificate as Ex. P79.

6. Respondent examined one witness namely, Kishan Singh, who

appeared as PW-16.

PW

7. After examining the pleadings and evidence led by the claimant and

Insurance Company, learned Tribunal found that there is no connectivity

between the offending vehicle i.e. Combine bearing No. PB-11-H-7204 and

injuries njuries suffered by the claimant.

8. In regard to the accident dated 25.04 25.04.1997, one DDR NO. 51 dated

01.05.1997 (Ex. R3) , was got lodged by Jit Ram, father of the claimant.

imant. He

averred that when his son Piara Singh tried to alight the Combine from rear

side through steps, he fell down suddenly, as a result of which he received

injuries in his abdomen. Further stated that firstly firstly, claimant was taken to

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140853 FAO-333-2003(O&M) 2003(O&M)

Preet Hospital, Jalalbad, thereafter to Hospital at Ferozepur and from there hhee

was further referred to Dayanand Da Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana.

Also stated that these injuries were suffered accidentl accidentlyy and nobody is to be

blamed. Thus, no action is required to be taken against anybody.

9. While concurring with the Tribunal, this Court finds that after

happening of the accident, accident factum of the accident was never brought to the

notice of any Authority Authority such as Police etc. Even, DDR No. 51 dated

01.05.1997 (Ex. R/3) R/3 was lodged by Jit Ram--father father of the Complainant, who

as per the list of witnesses did not appear to depose about the manner of

accident and recording of the DDR.

10. There is another aspect in regard to the happening of the accident ,that

as per the factual details mentioned in the DDR ,injured injured was already on board

and while he was alighting the Combine from rear side tthrough hrough steps, he fell

down, however, as per the claimant'ss version mentioned in the claim petition petition,,

while standing in the fields of Karnail Singh Rai and planning a scheme for

proper harvesting of wheat crop, respondent NO.1 suddenly started the

harvesting rvesting Combine and drove it in the reverse gear without blowing any

horn,, which resulted in causing of the multiple grievous injuries juries on the

person of the claimant.

claimant Thus, hus, apart lodging of the DDR No.51

dated01.05.1997 01.05.1997 (Ex. R/3) at belated stage i.e. after about five days, days,there there is

factual contradiction in the manner of happening of accident.

11. While hearing the appellant, this Court ourt also asked the counsel for the

claimant to bring to the notice of the Court, Court any document from any of three

hospitals/Medical Centres, Centres, where the injured was taken after happening of

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140853 FAO-333-2003(O&M) 2003(O&M)

the accident, to show the recording of the fact that claimant suffere suffered d injuries

duee to the use of Motor Vehicle.

Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant could

not cite any such document recording and endorsement of any such fact in

any of the document including the medical record record.

Thus, it it could be safely concluded that the injuries have not been

suffered by the claimant on account of the use of the harvesting combine

which is alleged offending vehicle as detailed in the claim petition.

Even, in DDR No. 51 dated 01.05.1997(Ex. R3) R3), registration no. of the

harvesting Combine is not mentioned, needless to say that said DDR was also

lodged after the period of five days.

12. There is another aspect that as per claim pe petition, tition, claimant was

working as second driver on the harvesting Combin

and 3.. However, at the time of accident, said Combine was driven by

respondent spondent No.1.

To prove a prima facie case, this Court could not see any evidence has

been placed on record by the claimant to establish that he was entitled for

driving the harvesting Combine, Combine, having a valid driving license.

13. Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate relie relied upon the judgments of this

Court (Punjab & Haryana High Court), Court) titled as 'Suresh Kumar Vs. Yamin

Ali and others, 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 584, & 'Tarwinder Singh Vs. Ishwar

Chand Mittal', 2001(3) RCR (Civil) 824,, and submits that the registration of

FIR in all the cases is not compulsory for proving the accident to claim

compensation amount from the Tribunal.

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140853 FAO-333-2003(O&M) 2003(O&M)

Undoubtedly, it is a settled proposition proposition of law that if the factum of

accident is well established from the evidence independently led in the

proceedings of claim petition, petition filed under the Act of 1988, registration of FIR

cannot be a condition precedent.

However, the cited judgments are not applicable as the facts involved

therein are different from facts involved in the present appeal.

Accordingly, there being bein no clue with the Court to reach to the

conclusion that the injuries suffered by the cl claimant are out of the alleged

incident, it has no other option but to accept the findings recorded by learned

Tribunal. Therefore, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.

14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any shall also stand

disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE October 25,, 2024 rashmi

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

2. Whether reportable? Yes/No

6 of 6