(O&M) Sushila and Ors v. Sanjay and Ors

IN T

Smt. Sushila and Sanjay and Othe

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The against the awa 166 of the Moto Tribunal, Panip appellant-claima FACTS NOT IN

2.

Bri deceased) and registration No. Bhrampur. At a motor-cycle bea offending motor rash and neglig Hawa Singh an

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA

Re Da d Others

VERSUS ers

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the r. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate fo -.-

HARMA, J.

e present appeal has been pref ard dated 05.04.2007 passed in or Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby pat (for short, 'the Tribunal'), d ants. N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are that o his son Satender Kumar we . HR-60-1266 for going toward about 8.30 PM, when they reach aring registration No.HR-60-40 r-cycle) driven at a very high spe gent manner from the opposite nd his son Satender Kumar. T

JAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-2188-2007 (O&M) served on:-28.02.2025 ate of Decision :-04.03.2025

....Appellants

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA e appellants. or respondent No.3 – Insurance C ferred by the appellants-claima claim petition filed under Sect the learned Motor Accident Cla dismissed the claim petition of on 20.06.2005, Hawa Singh (si ere riding a motor-cycle bear ds village Bapoli from his vill hed near the gate of a warehous 030 (hereinafter referred to as eed by Sanjay respondent No.1 i e direction, hit the motor-cycle They fell down on the road. T

Co. ants tion ims nce ring lage e, a in a e of

deceased receiv Home, Panipat two days, when succumbed to hi at the time of hi earning Rs.15,00

3.

Up written reply den

4.

Fro issues:-

5.

Aft record, the le claimants/appell SUBMISSIONS

6.

Lea petition is dismi

ved multiple grievous injuries. where he remained admitted as n he was being taken to PGIMS is injuries on the way near Goha is death. He was in agriculture a 00/-per month from the said avo on notice of the claim petition nying the factum of accident/com om the pleadings of the parties,

¶1Whether the accident and negligent driving of veh No.1? OPP

¶2If issue No.1 is prove the claimants are entitled to a

¶3Whether the responde compensation in view of statement? OPR-3

¶4Relief. ter taking into consideration th earned Tribunal dismissed t lants filed the present appe S OF LEARNED COUNSELS arned counsel for the claiman issed only on the ground that the

He was taken to Jindal Nurs indoor patient for two days. A S Rohtak from the said hospital, ana. The deceased was 42 years and dairy farming business and w ocation. n, respondents appeared and fi mpensation. the Tribunal framed the follow in question took place due to r hicle No.HR-60-4037 by respond d to what amount of compensat and from whom? OPP. ent No.3 is not liable to pay a POS taken by it in the writ he pleadings and the evidence the claim petition. Hence eal for grant of compensati S FOR THE PARTIES nts-appellants contends that cla ere is a delay of 24 days in lodg

sing After , he old was filed wing rash dent tion any tten on ion. aim

of the FIR and f factum of comp the present appe

7.

Per however, vehem learned Tribuna therefore, prays

8.

I ha record of this ca

9.

The "10 Kum thu he Bap he war in a roa mu has Sar arr

further on the ground that the ap romise due to which the FIR wa eal be allowed. r contra, learned counsel for th mently argues that the award l has rightly dismissed the claim for dismissal of the appeal. ave heard the learned counsel fo ase. e relevant portion of the award is

¶0In order to prove this issu mar appeared as PW.1. As per c e motor cycle with his father w us, an eye-witness to the acciden and his father were riding a mo poli from their village. His fathe was a pillion rider. At about 8 rehouse, the offending motor cyc a rash and negligent manner by e opposite direction and hit their ad. His father fell on the metal ltiple injuries whereas he fell on s further stated that the accide rpanch of their village and one rived at the spot. All of them

ppellants were not able to prove as delayed. He, therefore, prays t he respondent-Insurance Compa has rightly been passed and m petition filed by the claimants. or the parties and perused the wh s reproduced as under:- ue, one of the claimants Saten case of the claimants, he was rid when accident took place and w nt. He has stated that on 20.6.20 otor cycle for going towards vill er was driving the motor cycle a .30 pm, when they reached nea cle driven at a very high speed a Sanjay respondent No.1 came fr r motor cycle. They fell down on l portion of the road and recei n the kacha portion of the road. ent was witnessed by Prem Sin Jagdish of Village Bhrampur. T took his father in Jindal Nurs

that any, He hole nder ding was 005, age ar a from ived He ngh They

Ho

¶22suc vill Sev at Ult reg cro had PW wer Vill goi Sin abo cam neg Sin roa Afte cyc In tak

me, Panipat, where he remain

6.2005, his father was being ccumbed to injuries near Goha lage and cremated. They did n veral panchayats were convene panchayat level with respon timately, they reported the mat gistered against respondent no.1 oss-examination, he added that h d received only simple injuries. Prem Singh alleged eye-witn W.2. He has stated that on the da re riding a motor cycle for go lage Bhrampur. Hawa Singh de ing ahead of them in the same di ngh was driving the motor cycle a out 8.30 pm, when they reached me from the opposite direction d gligent manner and hit the same ngh deceased. Hawa Singh fell ad, whereas his son Satender fel er causing the accident respond cle. They all shifted Hawa Singh cross examination, it was sugg ken place in his presence, wh

ned admitted upto 22.6.2005. taken to PGIMS Rohtak when ana. His dead body was taken not report the matter to the Pol ed in the village to settle the ma ndent no.1, but with no res tter to the police and got a c for having caused the accident he did not get any treatment as ness to the accident is examined ay of accident, he and one Jagd oing to Village Bapoli from th eceased and his son Satender w irection on their motor cycle. Ha and his son was the pillion rider near a warehouse respondent n driving a motor cycle in a rash a e against the motor cycle of Ha down on the metal portion of ll on the kacha portion of the ro dent no.1 sped away on the mo h to Jindal Nursing Home, Pani gested to him that no accident h hich fact he denied. It was a

On he n to lice. tter sult. case t. In s he d as dish heir were awa r. At no.1 awa oad. otor ipat had

sug

¶11Jite Ins inv Bhr Sat obt offe his inv bet

¶12acc cla sam by driv exp by cou

ggested to him that the offendin e accident in any way which fact On the other hand, respond ender Singh Balee as RW.1. urance Company (respondent vestigator to investigate the p rampur where claimants reside a tender Kumar. He also inspecte tained the photocopy of challa fending motor cycle. On comple report Ex.R1. As per his report, volved in the accident in any way tween the claimants and respond

Having gone through the evi e learned counsel for the parties e view that the offending moto cident in any way and that it i imants and respondents no.1 an me. One is delay of 24 days in lo itself is no ground to suspect th e respondent no.1 and none else ving the offending motor cycle plained. In this case the claiman stating that respondent no.1 a urt settlement and that panchay

ng motor cycle was not involved he again denied. dent no.3 examined its investiga He has stated that the Orien t no.3) had appointed him present case. He visited villa and recorded the statement of P ed the file of the criminal case a an and mechanical report of etion of investigation, he submit , the offending motor cycle was y and that it was a case of collus dent no.1 and 2 idence on file, submissions made s, connected circumstances, I am or cycle was not involved in is a case of collusion between nd 2. There are two reasons for odging the FIR. It is true that de he case of the claimants that it w who had caused the accident wh rashly and negligently, if prope nts have sought to explain the de and 2 approached them for out yats were also convened for ou

d in ator ntal as age PW1 tted not sion e by m of elay was hile erly elay t of

cou pan of a dec refu abo con tha cov cla offe

¶27exa fou cyc offe are col des tha dec cau

urt settlement, but when the nchayat level, the matter was rep any such panchayat has been ex cision taken by the panchayat w fused to obey, nor PW.1 Satender out the same. It leads to the conc nvened nor any efforts were ma at the story on this point has be ver up the delay. The second most important r imants in the mechanical rep fending motor cycle was taken in

7.2005, it was examined by amination, no damage of any kin und to have been caused. There cle. It can be argued that it wa fending motor cycle was caused i e to be believed, it was a hea llision between both the motor c stroyed the motor cycle riding by an Rs.30,000/- to the claimants a e petition. It cannot be believed ceased was totally damaged an used to the offending motor cycle

matter could not be settled ported to the Police, but no mem amined to prove as to what was which the respondents No.1 an r Kumar claimant has stated a w clusion that no such panchayat w ade for out of court settlement a een concocted by the claimants reason to disbelieve the case of port dated 27.7.2005 Ex.R5. nto possession by the police and the mechanic of the police. nd to the offending motor cycle w was even no scratch on the mo as possible that no damage to in the accident, but if the claima ad on collision and the impact cycles was so forceful that it tota y the deceased causing loss of m as pleaded in para no.22 and 24 that the motor cycle ridden by nd not even a single scratch w e.

d at mber d 2 word was s to f the d on On was otor ants t of ally more 4 of

¶13dou dec acc req wha exp tak

8.3 Pan Jin Ho at t his awa pro

¶14Ho Vs. sta hig pie are que

The presence of PW.1 and P ubtful. Again it cannot be be ceased and PW.1 Satender were cident and PW.1 escaped only quire medical treatment. If it atsoever, he escape only wi planation as to why it took him a king the deceased to the hospita 0 pm, and the deceased was nipat at 10.30 pm as per statem dal. The distance between the pl me was merely 14/15 km. Had P the time of accident, he would no father to a hospital when the ac ay place from Panipat town, whe ovide prompt medical care to suc

Learned counsel for the cl n'ble Madras High Court in "Ne G. Vijaya Kandiban & Anr. tements of the witnesses record gher pedestal than the FIR. I do ece of evidence and the statement e certainly on higher pedestal t estion is whether the claimants h

W.2 at the time of accident is a elieved that the motor cycle, riding, was totally damaged in with minor injuries which did is believed that for any rea ith minor injuries, there is and PW.2 Prem Singh, two hours al. The accident had taken place brought to Jindal Nursing Ho ment of PW.3 Dr. Rajender Parsh lace of accident and Jindal Nurs PW.1 Satender Kumar been pres ot have wasted two hours in shift ccident had taken place not at a ere there are number of hospitals ch like patients/injured. laimants has cited a judgment New India Assurance Company L IV (2006) ACC 96" to show t ded by the Court on oath are agree that FIR is not a substan ts of the witnesses recorded on o than the FIR, but in this case, have been able to explain the de

also not son s in e at me, had sing sent fting far s to t of Ltd. that on ntial oath

in evid

15. ANALYSIS OF

10.

Sat father was driv statement he sta father on the w Panipat referred intervention by respondent No.1 lodging of the F intact. The Tribu constitutes a ma

11.

FIR accident is state

12.

Pre who alongwith Satender. He in His statement fu Singh), too, with elicited. The Tri of eye-witness i

lodging the FIR and if not its dence and circumstances on the f

For the reasons recorded ab e claimants." F THE RECORD tender, eye-witness, was exami ving the motor-cycle and he wa ated the whole factum of accide way to PGIMS, Rohtak, where D d his father to PGIMS Rohta the village Panchayat, an attem 1, Sanjay, but the compromise e FIR. Despite extensive cross-ex unal's failure to accord due wei anifest error. R is Ex.PA and a perusal of th d therein. em Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, Village Jagdish was going ahead of H n his examination-in-chief has st ully aligns with the version given hstood cross-examination withou ibunal's disregard of such indepe s legally untenable.

s consequence coupled with ot file which I have discussed abov bove, this issue is decided aga ned as PW-1, who stated that as pillion-rider thereon and in ent and the factum of death of Dr. Jindal of Jindal Nursing Hom ak. He further stated that due mpt for settlement was made w efforts failed, leading to subsequ amination, his credibility remain ight to this unimpeached testimo he same shows that the factum Chhajpur, was examined as PW Hawa Singh (deceased) and his tated the whole factum of accide n by PW-1 (Satender). PW-2 (Pr ut any material contradictions be endent and corroborative testimo

ther ve. inst his his his me, e to with uent ned ony m of W-2, son ent. rem eing

13.

In probabilities, no made to the judg Sharma Vs. Ne Supreme Court h "22 Cou stan cla pre On exa fau in a pla ver aro

motor accident claims, the stan ot proof beyond a reasonable dou gment rendered by the Hon'ble w India Assurance Co. Ltd. 20 has held as under :-

¶2Equally, we are conce urt to be cognizant of the fact th ndards of proof like in a crimin im cases. The standard of pro eponderance of probabilities, rat e needs to be mindful that the a amining evidence in accident cl ult with non-examination of some a criminal trial; but, instead sho aced on record by the parties to rsion is more likely than not tr ose in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joa 6, wherein this Court reiterated t "7. It would hardly need a m on the part of the first respo van as set up by the claima the learned Tribunal on th probabilities and certainly reasonable doubt."

ndard of proof is preponderance ubt. The reliance at this stage can Supreme Court in the case of An 021(1) SCC (Crl) 473, wherein erned over the failure of the H hat strict principles of evidence a nal trial are inapplicable in MA oof in such like matters is one ther than beyond reasonable dou approach and role of Courts wh laim cases ought not to be to f e best eyewitnesses, as may happ ould be only to analyze the mater o ascertain whether the claiman rue. A somewhat similar situat aquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 S that: mention that the plea of neglige ondent who was driving the pick ants was required to be decided e touchstone of preponderance not on the basis of proof beyo

e of n be nita High ACT e of ubt. hile find pen rial nt's tion SCC ence kup d by e of

14.

Th factum of the ac

15.

Dr. examined as PW hospital on 20.0 road side accide injury and fractu Dr. Sanjay Gup deceased was op Dr. Rajinder Par was sent to the p Dr. Rajinder Pa further stated th the seriousness could not be sha sustained and t consider this ev perusal of the evidence on rec petition on flims

16.

A p of the offending FIR against hi overwhelming e

he corroborated testimony of PW ccident. Rajinder Parshad Jindal, Jin W-3, who testified that Hawa Si

06.2005 (i.e. the date of acciden ent. He further stated that Hawa ure both bone right leg and dece pta, who was working in his Nu perated in his hospital in his pre rshad Jindal further stated that d police station regarding deceased arshad Jindal proved Ex.PB, wh hat Hawa Singh (deceased) was of his condition. He was cross-e aken. This medical testimony est their direct connection to the a vidence amounts to a perverse above shows that the learned cord which proves the factum o sy grounds. perusal of the written reply filed g vehicle further shows that ther im. However, the learned Trib evidence, dismissed the claim pet

Ws 1 and 2 suffices to establish ndal Nursing Home, Panipat w ngh (deceased) was admitted in nt) at 10:30 PM with the history a Singh (deceased) got severe h eased was treated by Neuro Surg ursing Home. He further stated t esence by Dr. Sanjay Gupta. PW deceased was quite serious and ru d's admission in his hospital. PW hich was photocopy of rukka. referred to PGIMS Rohtak due examined at length, but his verac tablishes both the nature of injur accident. The Tribunal's failure e appreciation of material facts d Tribunal has totally ignored f accident and dismissed the cla by respondent No.1 (Sanjay) dri re is an admission of registration bunal, instead of relying on tition.

was his y of head eon that W-3 uqa W-3 He e to city ries e to s. A aim iver

17.

In v the Tribunal on decided in favo appellants-claim

18.

So, the learned Trib

¶3Therefore, fo the Tribunal to receipt of copy o

19.

The scheduled fees t from the date o FAO No.1682 o

20.

Pen

March 04, 2025 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

view of the above, the present ap n Issue No.1 are hereby set a our of the appellants-claimants mants are held entitled to compen , far as Issue Nos.2 and 3 are c bunal and evidence is required to for decision on Issue Nos. 2 and decide the same within a perio of this judgment. e insurance company is hereb to Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advoc of receipt of copy of this judgm of 2007 dated 18.07.2024 by this nding application(s), if any, also

(S

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

ppeal is allowed and the findings side. Consequently, Issue No.1 and against the respondents. T nsation. concerned no finding was given o be led for deciding issue No.2 d 3, the matter is remanded back od of two months from the date by directed to deposit the curr cate within a period of twenty d ent, in view of the order passed Court. stand disposed of. SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king

s of 1 is The n by k to e of rent days