Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sudarshan Kumari Etc vs Surinder Kumar Etc on 7 February, 2025
FAO-958-2001 (O&M) Page 1 of 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
209 FAO-958-2001 (O&M)
Date of decision: 07.02.2025
Sudarshan Kumari and others
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Surinder Kumar and others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Vinod K. Kataria, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Anil Spehia, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Pradeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.3.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
The claimants are in appeal before this Court against the
Award dated 07.11.2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Faridkot (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal")
whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 166 and
140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act"), has been dismissed. The 5 claimants are the widow, 2 daughters, 1
son, and mother of the deceased Tarsem Grover.
2. Briefly stated the facts as averred by the appellants in their
claim petition was that on 21.10.1998 at about 6.30 A.M. deceased
Tarsem Grover was returning home after a morning walk. He reached
near clock tower, Faridkot. A scooter bearing registration No. PB-04F-
2077 (hereinafter referred to as 'the alleged offending vehicle'), came
from behind and struck him with the result that he fell down and
sustained multiple injuries on his body and head. The offending vehicle
was being driven by Surinder Kumar respondent No.1 son of Bali Ram
rashly and negligently at a very high speed and the driver could not
control the same resulting in the accident. Tarsem Grover was removed
to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot where he
was treated. As the condition of Tarsem Grover became serious he was
referred to Ludhiana. However, when he was coming from Ludhiana to
Faridkot, he died near Canals at Talwandi Raod, Faridkot.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claimants
had led sufficient evidence on record to establish that the deceased
Tarsem Grover had died due to the injuries suffered by him in the above
said motor vehicular accident that took place on 21.10.1998 due to the
rash and negligent driving of the alleged offending scooter. Despite that
the claim petition of the appellants has been dismissed by the learned
Tribunal only on the ground that in the D.D.R, it has been mentioned
that deceased died near Talwandi Road, while going to Ludhiana.
Whereas, in the statement, it has been mentioned that deceased died
while coming from Ludhiana. It is submitted that it has been denied by
the AW-3 that he stated before the police that deceased died while
going to Ludhiana and it has been mentioned in the report of the police
as under: "Jiss nun lijande samen Talwandi Road Nehar kol Tarsem
Grover dee mott hogahi"
4. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 has nowhere
denied about the accident and he himself admitted that all of a sudden a
dog came in front of the scooter and deceased struck against his scooter
and fell down on the ground. In the cross-examination he has stated that
he was going at the speed of 40-50 K.M. and deceased was going on his
left hand side of the road. Thus, the evidence clearly shows that the
accident took place with the scooter driven by respondent No.1 and the
ld. Tribunal has wrongly interpreted the DDR and dismissed the petition
when as per the evidence the findings of the learned Tribunal is totally
illegal and erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the
judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in 'Union India
Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Regional Manager, Chandigarh and
another vs. Shri Swaran Singh and another' The Punjab Law Reporter
159 to submit that registration of an FIR is not an essential prerequisite
for claiming the compensation.
6. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellants.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.
8. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the
appellants as a perusal of the record reveals that the case put up by the
claimants and their witnesses, abounds in contradictions and
discrepancies.
9. To support their afore-noted case, the Claimants have
produced AW3 Tarsem Kataria who is stated to be the pillion rider on the
alleged offending vehicle being driven by respondent No.1. Tarsem
Kataria has deposed that on 21.10.1998, he was pillion rider of
respondent No.1. AW3 has stated that when they reached near the clock
tower street suddenly a dog came and struck with the scooter which was
being driven at a high speed. AW3 further deposed that respondent
No.1 could not control the same and his scooter hit on the backside of
Tarsem Grover; as a result of which the deceased fell on the ground and
sustained serious injuries on his head and other parts of the body. As
such, the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving
of the alleged offending vehicle by respondent No.1.
10. AW3 had further deposed that he alongwith Madan Lal took
the deceased to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital,
Faridkot where the deceased was administered the first aid. However, as
the condition of the deceased was serious, he was referred to the
hospital in Ludhiana. However, even in Ludhiana, the Doctors opined
that there was no chance of survival of the deceased. As such AW3 along
with others were bringing the deceased back from Ludhiana to Faridkot;
and when they reached near canals near Talwandi road, Faridkot, the
deceased succumbed to his injuries.
11. The learned Tribunal had disbelieved the above evidence
given by AW3 Tarsem Kataria as, as per the DDR dated
22.10.1998/Ex.A3, Tarsem Kataria had stated that when the deceased
was being taken from Faridkot to Ludhiana, he had succumbed to his
injuries. This statement was made by AW3 on 22.10.1998 before the
police soon after the accident, which was recorded in the Roznamcha at
No.4. Thus, no reliance could be placed upon the contradictory
statement of AW3 Tarsem Kataria.
12. Further, the accident is stated to have taken place on
21.10.1998 at about 06:30 a.m., whereas the DDR No. 4 has been
registered on 22.10.1998 about 08:30 a.m. It would bear to reason that
the above story has been concocted by the claimants and the claimants'
witnesses in order to explain the delay in registration of the DDR. In any
event, presumption of truth is to be attached in the statement initially
made by AW3 where he had stated that the deceased had succumbed to
his injuries when he was being taken from Faridkot to Ludhiana on
21.10.1998 as the said statement, was made soon after the accident.
Whereas his deposition as AW3 before the learned Tribunal was almost
two years after the accident wherein he has now stated that the
deceased succumbed to his injuries while he was being brought back
from Ludhiana to Faridkot.
13. It is also pertinent to note that even in the DDR Ex.A3, AW3
has not mentioned that respondent No.1 was driving the alleged
offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In fact in the DDR,
AW3 has stated that nobody is at fault and no action be taken against
anyone. In contrast, in his testimony as AW3 Tarsem Kataria, had
categorically stated that the accident took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of respondent No.1. It is also pertinent to note that
AW3 had stated on solemn affirmation before the learned Tribunal that
he was not related to the deceased in any manner. However, in the DDR
Ex.A3 in the statement made by Tarsem Kataria to the police, he had
specifically mentioned that the deceased was the son of his Bua. As
such, the evidence of the sole eyewitness AW3 Tarsem Kataria is dubious
and doubtful being interested witness. It is also relevant that as per
AW3 accident was witnessed by many people. However, these witnesses
were not examined by the claimants for the reasons best known to
them.
14. Respondent No.1 as RW1 has also stated that the accident
took place in a thickly populated area of the city. However, RW1 had
further deposed that the deceased himself had struck against the
offending scooter and fallen on ground and that respondent No.1 was
not at fault. It is interesting to note that RW1 has nowhere mentioned
that AW3 Tarsem Kataria was a pillion rider. Even no question to this
effect was put to the respondent No.1 by the claimants during cross-
examination. It was in this background, the learned Tribunal doubted
the story put forth by the claimants and dismissed the claim petition.
15. Nothing has been shown to this Court to discard the findings
of the learned Tribunal.
16. The appellant can derive no benefit from the above referred
judgment as the said judgment is distinguishable on facts and law.
17. No doubt in proceedings under the Act, the claimants are
required to merely establish the case on the touch stone of
preponderance of probability; and are not required to prove it beyond
reasonable doubt as mandated in a criminal trial. However, the case put
forth by the claimants cannot be entirely fantastical and has to bear bare
semblance of belief.
18. Keeping in view the facts as noted above, the present appeal
is dismissed.
19. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
07.02.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
