Naresh Kumar v. Harish Kumar and Ors

IN

Naresh Kumar

Harish Kumar

CORAM: HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The

09.12.2005 pass the learned Mot for granting com by him in the ac FACTS NOT IN

2.

The along with his government Jeep Bhoop Singh. Kolian on G.T

N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN

AT CHANDIG

Date of Decisio r

Vs.

and Others

ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the a r. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for re r. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for res

---- HARMA J. (ORAL) e present appeal has been pr sed in the claim petition filed u tor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ku mpensation to the claimant/appel ccident. N DISPUTE e brief facts of the case are that son Naresh Kumar was going p bearing registration No.HR-05 When at about 9:15 AM, the j .Road, a truck bearing registra

NJAB & HARYANA GARH on: September 27, 2024

......Appellant(s)

......Respondent(s) EEPTI SHARMA appellant. espondent No.3 – Insurance Co. spondent No.4. referred against the award da under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 urukshetra (for short, 'the Tribun llant on account of injuries receiv t on 23.06.2005 deceased Tek R from Madhuban to Chandigarh 5K/4532 which was being driven jeep reached near village Khan ation No.HR-38K/7072 driven

ated by nal') ved Ram h in n by npur

Harish Kumar re Jeep from behi G.T.Road struck was coming fro the occupants o Hospital, Kuruk who was travell Jeep bearing re No.HR-38K/707 accident. Nares was owned by re

3.

Up the factum of co

4.

Fro issues:-

espondent No.1 rashly and negli ind. Due to the impact, the J k against an Indica Car bearing r om the opposite direction and th of Jeep received multiple inju kshetra where Tek Ram succumb ling in Indica Car bearing registr egistration No.HR-05K/4532 str 72, driven by respondent No.1-H sh also sustained injuries in the espondent No.2 and insured with on notice of the claim petition, ompensation. om the pleadings of the parties,

¶1Whether the accident Tek Ram and Bhupinder S caused due to rash and ne 38K/7072 by its driver respo

¶2If issue No.1 is proved the petitioners are entitled to

¶3Whether respondent N effective driving licence on t

¶4Relief.

igently came from Pipli side, hit Jeep after crossing the divider registration No.PB-11S/4327, wh hereafter, Jeep fell into ditches. uries. They were taken to LN ed to his injuries. Bhupinder Sin ration No.PB-11S/4327, with wh ruck after the accident with tru Harish Kumar, who also died in said accident. The offending tru h respondent No.3. , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow in question resulting into death Singh and injuries to Naresh w egligent driving of truck No.H ondent No.1 as alleged" OPP d, to what amount of compensati and from whom?OPP No.1 was not holding a valid the alleged date of accident? OPR

r of hich All NJP, ngh hich uck uck nied wing h of was HR-ion, R

5.

Aft record, the learn Hence the claim SUBMISSIONS

6.

Lea Harish Kumar i highway, theref numerous cases accident took p offending vehic

23.06.2005, itse occasion for ma the respondents the driver, respo the learned Tribu

Fur had admitted tha and Ex.P/89 an Therefore, he su for allowing of t

7.

Per however, vehem the appellants ha be dismissed.

ter taking into consideration th ned Tribunal dismissed the claim mant/appellant filed the present ap S OF THE COUNSELS arned counsel for the appellant is a truck driver and being truck fore, it cannot be presumed tha s, the present case is a false o place on 9:15 on 23.06.2005 cle was duly mentioned in the elf which was recorded at 12 anipulation. He further contend has appeared to prove the false ondent No.1 Harish Kumar did n unal, to deny his involvement in rther that surveyor RW-12 S.K at rear side of the jeep was brok d also admitted that Jeep was t ubmits that the claim petition has the present appeal. r contra, learned counsel for th mently argues on the lines of the as rightly been rejected. He, ther

he pleadings and the evidence m petition of the claimant/appella ppeal for grant of compensation. t contends that as a matter of f k driver accidents do occur on at since the person is involved one. He further contends that and registration number of FIR by RW-14 Bhoop Singh 2:45 PM, therefore, there was ds that no witness from the side e involvement of the vehicle. Ev not appear in the witness box bef n the accident. K.Makkar in his cross-examinat en as shown in photograph Ex.P totally damaged from the left si s been wrongly dismissed and pr he respondent-Insurance Compa e award and contends that claim refore, prays that the present app

on ant.

fact d in on e of ven fore tion P/87 ide. rays any, m of

8.

I h record of this ca

9.

Rel under:- "8. cla Kum jeep resp Kha 38K neg cam hit stru wer suc ran was ras HR

have heard learned counsel for ase. levant portion of the award d At the outset, it has been arg imants that on 23.06.2003 Tek mar had started from Madhub p No.HR-05K/4532 which wa pondent No.4. At about 9:15 AM anour Kolian on G.T.Road., in t K/7072 being driven by responde gligent manner and at high speed me from Pipli side and hit the je was so high that the jeep cro uck against an Indica Car No.PB e opposite side. The jeep fell in e occupants of the jeep received re shifted to L.N.J.P Hospita ccumbed to the injuries sustained n away from the spot after causi s challaned by the police. The a sh and negligent driving of respo R-38K/7072.

the parties and perused the wh dated 09.12.2005 is reproduced gued by the learned counsel for k Ram deceased, his son Nar ban to Chandigarh in Governm as being driven by Bhoop Sin M when the said jeep reached n the meantime truck bearing No.H ent No.1 Harish Kumar in rash a d without observing the traffic ru eep from behind. The impact of ossed the divider of G.T.Road a B-115/4327 which was coming fr nto ditches, as a result of which d multiple grievous injuries. T al, Kurukshetra where Tek R d in the accident. Respondent N ing the accident. Respondent N accident had taken place due to s ondent No.1 while driving truck N

hole d as resh ment ngh near HR-ules f the from all They Ram No.1 No.1 sole

¶9has Go pla par 4:3 pos cou inw of E

¶23dat sho agr Pre Ha veh offe has pas sho arg Ple Ind

To rebut the arguments of le s been argued by learned c vernment Pleader for the State ace with truck No.HR-38K/7072. rked in L.N.N.P III RMS casual 30 AM and had left the premises ssible for the truck to reach Kur unsel for the insurance compa ward material register as Ex.R10 Era Constructions India Ltd. Ne

06.2003. He has also placed o ted 23.06.2003 as Ex.R108 in own as HR-38K/7072. He ha reement between Era Construc esident of India as Ex.R111. I rish Kumar driver of offending t hicles in M.A.C.T cases. Some ti fending vehicle. The learned c s placed on record a number of ssed therein in which Harish K own as either owner or driver of gued by learned counsel for r eader that if at all the accident dica car No.PB-115/4327 and J

earned counsel for the claimants counsel for the respondents a that in fact no accident had ta On 23.06.2003, the said truck w lty and it had lifted the materia s of the hospital at 7 A.M. It is rukshetra by 9.15 AM. The learn ny has placed on record copy 07 showing that construction w ew Delhi was going on that day on record the material receipt s which the truck number has b as also placed on record copy ctions and for and on behalf It has been argued that moreo truck is habitual in offering his o imes in the capacity of driver of ounsel for the insurance compa f petitions and the copies of aw Kumar respondent No.1 has b f the offending vehicle. It has b respondents and the Governm t had taken place, it was betw Jeep No.HR-05K/4532. There w

s, it ken was l at not ned y of work i.e. slip een y of f of over own f the any ward een een ment ween

sub dam to h driv insu

¶10exa evid

¶11cla one

¶12Dev truc resp resp cou him resp pre

fault of the truck, rather the n bsequently. Before M.A.C.T K mages of the jeep was pending. I how the number of the truck cam ver of the jeep bearing No.HR-0 e respondents have prayed for d ese have been filed with the purp urance company.

The arguments advanced by d respondents have been caref amination of the record of the c dence. Now discussing the argum imants and respondents along e.

It has been argued by learne vi and Naresh Kumar that Haris ck No.HR-38K/7072 has not bee pondents and an adverse infere pondents. If respondent No.1 unsel for the petitioners would m. When the counsel for pet pondent No.1 Harish Kumar dri esumed that he has been fals

number of truck has been plan Karnal, the case with regard It is not apparent from the record me to the knowledge of Bhoop Sin 05K/4532. The learned counsel dismissal of the claim petitions rpose to take undue claim from learned counsel for the petition efully heard alongwith meticul case, oral as well as document ments of learned counsel for with Government Pleader one ed counsel for the petitioners Ma sh Kumar respondent No.1 drive en produced by learned counsel rence has to be drawn against had been produced, the learn d had opportunity to cross-exam titioners could not cross-exam iver of offending truck, it cannot sely implicated in the said ca

nted d to d as ngh for s as ners lous tary by Maya r of for ned mine mine t be

Mo on lod con for

¶23L.N Con exa lea cou war Era resp cou by pen cou title

(3) Par Vs.

oreover, the accident relates to 9: e same day i.e. 23.06.2003 at 1: the same day, it cannot be conc e driver of the truck had been dging the FIR, it could be pr ncoction of the story and insertin respondents has tried to take t

6.2003 the offending truck no. N.J.P. Hospital-III, Delhi and nstructions. Learned counsel for amine the witness in the presen rned counsel for respondents w urt in not examining the witn rrants were ordered to be issue a Constructions, New Delhi. In s pondents did not examine him. unsel for respondents has placed him in claim petition relating to nding before the Tribunal at Kar unsel for the petitioners has pla ed as Bhagwani Devi Vs. Krish P.L.R. 170 titled as Smt. She rshad and others and 1999(2) C Mankikrao & Anr.

:15 A.M and the FIR was lodged 15 PM. When the FIR was lodg cluded that the number of truck a planted. Had there been delay resumed that there was time ng the vehicle. The learned coun the plea that on the fateful day HR-38K/7072 was lying parked was carrying material for E r respondents have not bothered nt petitions rather the intention was to delay the proceedings of ness. A number of times baila ed against B.B Yadav, an officia spite of that the learned counsel Instead of examining him, learn d on record copy of statement m o damage of jeep no. HR-05K/45 rnal. It cannot be accepted. Lear aced reliance on 1986(1) ACJ 3 han Kumar Saini and others, 19 eela Devi and others Vs. Jaya C.C.Cases 91 titled as Vidhyad

d on dged y in for nsel i.e. d at Era d to n of f the able l of for ned ade ned anti

¶13resp Me pro Vs.

¶14pet fac prim neg

¶15who it t side he cou pho hav

It has next been argued by l e copies of statements made by e other file had merely been pondents. No efforts have been ere marking of documents as an oof and in support of this argum 71 Supreme Court 1865 titled as . Yelamarti Satyam and others.

It has next been co titioners that Harish Kumar dr cing criminal trial under section ma-facie proves that the acciden gligent driving of driver. He has 9 titled as Girdhari Lal Vs. Radh

Learned counsel for p e court towards cross-examinatio o had admitted in his cross-exa e jeep was broken in photograph to be correct that in Ex. R/89 ph de water penal. He has also admi had inspected was badly damag unsel for petitioners have draw otographs in which the left rear ve been damaged. It has been

learned counsel for petitioners t witnesses and the documents fr exhibited by learned counsel n made to prove those docume n exhibit does not dispense with ment he has placed reliance on A Sait Tarajee Khimchand and oth ontended by learned counsel river of offending truck has b ns 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC wh nt had taken place due to rash a s placed reliance on 1993(2) P.L hey Shyam and others. petitioners has drawn attention on of RW-12 S.K. Makkar, Surve amination that the left rear side h Ex. R/87. He has further admit hotograph there was a dent on itted that the jeep in question wh ged from the left side. The learn wn attention of the Court towa side of the jeep has been shown n argued by learned counsel

that from for nts. h its AIR hers for een hich L.R. n of eyor e of tted left hich ned ards n to

pet cla 05K

¶16sta of Cr.P

1.1 sec was bee det inc reg sta Kar one tha Kur tha Kar Me Ho

titioners that the petitioners have imants that truck no. HR-38K K/4532 from back side.

First of all taking the tement of Bhoop Singh driver. T

23.6.2003 at 9.15 A.M. The c P.C. has been placed on record 5 P.M. on 23.6.2003. In the o ction 173 Cr.P.C. it has been re s received that an accident had en admitted in L. N. J. P. Hospi tails it has been reported that cluding Bhoop Singh were record gistered. Bhoon Singh has been ted that he was admitted in th rnal and the police had recorded e hand it has been stated in the at the statement of Bhoop Singh w rukshetra and on the other han at he regained consciousness in rnal on 24.6.2003 and his statem eaning thereby Bhoop Singh rem spital. Kurukshetra and could

e successfully proved the version K/7072 had hit the jeep no. H e point of recording of FIR on The accident has been alleged to copy of report under section 1 d as Ex. P/19. It was registered opening lines of the report un ecorded that a telephonic messa d taken place and the injured h ital. Kurukshetra. After writing t the statement of all the inju rded on the basis of which FIR w n examined as RW14 and he he hospital of Dr. Vijay Gupta d his statement at that hospital. e report under section 173 Cr.P was recorded in L.N. J. P. Hospi nd, Bhoop Singh RW14 has sta the hospital of Dr. Vijay Gupta ment was recorded on the same d mained unconscious in L. N. J d not make any statement. If

n of HR-o be d at nder age ave ured was has a at On P.C. ital. ated a at day. J. P.

sta

23.

¶17acc alle und wh bee he whe exa he whe fur acc G.T G.T on for in w acc dis Tho

tement was recorded on 24.6.2

6.2003 at 1.15 P.M.

Now taking the numbe cident and because of rash and egedly the accident had taken der section 173 Cr.P.C. placed o ich the statement made by Bhoop en specifically stated by Bhoop S came to know the number of tru en stepped into the witness amination that he had not seen e later part of his cross-examina had noticed the registration num en he fell down on the road a ther stated that he had notice cident. He has stated that he fel T Road: whereas the Jeep fell in T. Road. The learned counsel for record copy of statement of Bh damages of jeep No. HR-05K/4 which he has stated that he had cident in the rear view mirror tance of 20-25 feet when he n ough the evidence in the othe

2003 how FIR was registered er of truck allegedly involved in negligent driving of driver of tr place. First of all copy of rep on record as Ex.P19 is materia p Singh has been reproduced. It Singh respondent no.4. that later uck as HR-38K/7072. Bhoop Sin box has admitted in his cro the truck prior to the accident ation it has been stated by him t mber of the truck after the accide and thereafter he got up. He ed the truck immediately after ll down on the divider between nto the ditches on other side of r the insurance company has pla hoop Singh examined in claim c 532 pending at Karnal as Ex. R1 d seen the truck prior to the alleg r of the jeep. The truck was a oticed the truck for the first ti er case is not material, yet it

on ruck port l in has r on ngh oss- . In that ent, has f the ced case ged at a me.

per for blo acc ma he afte has not

¶18tha eith cas Roo cla The pet The exa Jud

rtinent to mention here that with damages of the jeep has been f e same witnesses have been exa ow hot and cold in the same b cident evidence is being recorde de by Bhoop Singh respondent n has stated that he noticed the n er the accident and it is not pra s fallen down after receiving suc d the offending vehicle has run a tice the number of offending vehi

The learned counsel for th at Harish Kumar respondent no. her as driver or as owner of the o ses whichever and wherever it ta e insurance company has examin om Sonepat as RWI who has bro im petition titled Murti Devi Vs. e case file of MACT case titled d case file titled as Urmila Vs. titions were consolidated having e learned counsel for the insura amined Pawan Kumar Addl. A dicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Ka

h regard to the same accident cla filed before Tribunal at Karnal a amined there. One witness can breath as with regard to the sa ed. This is contradictory statem no.4 driver of the jeep. At one pl number of truck after he fell do actically possible that a person w h heavy impact due to other veh away from the spot the injured c icle. he insurance company has arg 1 is in the habit of offering him offending vehicle in all the accid ake place. The learned counsel ned Balram D.R.K.. Sessions Rec ought the summoned file relating Rai Kumar decided on 29.11.20 d as Randhir Singh Vs. Raj Kum Raj Kumar. All these three cla g arisen out of the same accide ance company-respondent no.3 Ahlmad to the Court of learn arnal as RW2 who has brought

aim nnot ame ment lace own who icle can ued self dent for cord g to

¶003mar aim ent. has

sum No. cas cer Cr.P Sha cer sup lea Rec bro Kum dec truc truc truc sup rec Vs. tha by crim und acc

mmoned file of criminal case t .206 of 2000, under sections 27 se the FIR was lodged agains rtified copy of the FIR is Ex. R10 P.C. is Ex. R11. As per recov ankar Dass had taken superdari rtificate of the truck shows him perdaginama has also been p rned counsel for respondent n cord Keeper, Judicial Record ought the summoned file of crim mar bearing FIR No. 786 of 19 cided on 23.10.2000. The FIR w ck driver and Harish Kumar w ck. In that case also, applicatio ck on superdari by Harish perdaginama is Ex.R17. Copy cord as Ex. R18. He has also bro Kulwant Singh FIR No.336, u at case also application for releas Harish Kumar son of Shanka minal case file of case State Vs der sections 279, 337, 304-A I cident was taken into police pos

titled as State Vs. Jati Singh. F 79, 337, 338, 340 IPC. In the s st an unknown truck driver. T

¶0Copy of report under section 1 very memo Harish Kumar son of offending truck and registrat m the owner of the truck. Copy laced on record as Ex.R12. T no.3 has examined Pawan Kum Room, Karnal as RW,. who minal case titled State vs. Krish 998, under sections 279. 336. 3 was registered against an unkno was later on shown as driver of on Ex.R16 was moved for taking Kumar and certified copy of judgment has been placed ought the criminal file titled as St under sections 279, 304-A IPC. se of truck on superdari was mo ar Dass. He has also brought Vs. Raj Kumar, FIR No.31 of 19 IPC. The vehicle involved in t ssession from Harish Kumar son

FIR said The n of tion y of The mar. has han own f the of on tate . In ved 999, that

Sha was Add Kar no. Ha tha by sub resp Sha Rec He dec cop H. dec sta cas

2.1 resp

ankar Dass and application for s moved by Harish Kumar son dl. Ahlmad of the court of learne rnal has also been examined b 3 as RW4 who has brought th rish Kumar FIR No.230 dated 8, 304-A IPC. The FIR was lodg at case also application for taking Harish Kumar. The certified co berdaginama have been placed pectively. As per registration ankar Dass was registered owne cord Keeper, Sessions Court, K has brought the M.A.C.T case fi cided on 15.3.2001. Copy of Jud d Ex. R35, file of case State V pies placed on record as Ex. R36 K. Pruthi decided on 4.1.2001, c d Ex. R39. MACT file titled as cided on 2.11.2001, certified c tement are Ex. R40 and Ex. R4 se file titled as Ram Kumar

1.2001, certified copies of cla pondent no. 1, written statem

release of said vehicle (Tata Sum n of Shankar Dass. Sanjay Kum ed Addl. Chief Judicial Magistra by learned counsel for respond he criminal case file of State

6.5.1999, under sections 279, 3 dged against an unknown driver g the truck on superdari was mo opies of the application and tha on record as Ex. R32 and Ex.R certificate, Harish kumar son er of the said vehicle. Ram Niw Karnal has been examined as RW file titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. J dgment placed on record as Ex.R Vs. Paramjit decided on 15.3.20 6 and Ex. R37. Charaniit Singh copies placed on record as Ex. R s Radhir Singh Vs. Harish Kum opy of claim petition and writ

¶41He has also brought the MA Vs. Harish Kumar decided aim petition, power of attorney ment and judgment are Ex.R42

mo) mar ate,. dent Vs. 337, r. In ved t of R33 n of was. W5. Jati R34 001, Vs. R38 mar tten ACT on y of 2 to

Ex. Ku wri The dec cla resp Vs. pet R55 Ram bro dec atto

5.1 Ahl exa vs. atto Sha J.M of c on

R45. He has brought the MA lwant Singh decided on 2.2.2002 itten statement and judgment ar e case file of MACT case titled a cided on 29.4.2003 has also be im petition, written statement an pectively. He has brought the MA Harish Kumar decided on 12.11 tition, power of attorney and wr

¶5The learned counsel for resp m, Record Keeper, Record Roo ought the MACT file titled as Aj cided on 5.10.2004. The certified orney, zimini orders dated 3.6.20

0.2004 are Ex.R56 to Ex. R60 r lmad of the Court of learned amined as RW7 who has brough Jaspal Singh, under sections orney of one Virender Singh is ankar Dass. Rajinder Kumar M.1.C. Panipat has been examine criminal case titled as State Vs. 7, 304-A IPC. In that case appli superdari was moved by Harish

CT case file titled as Roshni 2, certified copies of claim petiti re Ex. R46 to Ex.R48 respectiv as Surender Kumar Vs. Raj Kum een brought the certified copies nd judgment are Ex. R49 to Ex. R MACT case file of case titled Rach

1.2001, the certified copies of cla ritten statement are Ex. R52 to pondent no.3 has examined Kan om, Kurukshetra as RW6. He Ajit Singh Vs. M/s Vikas Road L d copies of claim petition, power 003, 11.4.2003 and judgment da respectively. Balbir Singh, Crimi d S. D. J. M. Gohana has b ht the criminal case file titled St 279, 304-A IPC. The power in favour of Harish Kumar son Ahlmad of the court of learn ed as RW8 who has brought the f Ashok Kumar, under sections 2 ication for releasing the Maruti h Kumar. Sandeep Singla, Ahlm

Vs. ion, vely. mar s of R51 hna aim Ex. nshi has Ltd. r of ated inal een tate r of n of ned file 279, car

of exa Com cop Ex. to t Tek bee bro in

¶17Cri Da truc

¶19has lea doc inv eve

the court of learned Addl. D amined as RW9. He has broug mmandant 4th Battalion Vs. Har pies of claim petition, written sta R71. It is pertinent to mention the damage of Jeep no. HR-05K k Ram was travelling on whose b en filed. Suresh Kumar Clerk, ought the file titled Deepak Vs. V default on 17.9.2003. Copies o

9.2003 are Ex. R72 and Ex. iminal Ahlmad of the court of J e file of criminal case titled State 7, 338 and 304-A IPC. In that c e truck on superdari was moved ss, the copies of application, po ck on superdari are Ex. R78 to E d surety bond is Ex.R82.

In reply to the arguments of s been argued by learned counse rned counsel for respondents h cuments and has examined a n volvement of Harish Kumar respo en by placing on record a nu

District Judge. Karnal has b ght the MACT case file titled rish Kumar filed on 1.12.2003. T atement and estimate are Ex. R68 here the said claim petition rela K/4532, in which allegedly decea behalf of present claim petition Labour Office, Karnal RW10 Virender Singh which was dismis of claim petition and order da R73 respectively. Rajinder Sa J.M.I.C. Sonepat RW11 has brou Vs. Raj Kumar under sections 2 case also application for releas d by Harish Kumar son of Shan olice report, order of releasing Ex.R80. Superdaginama is Ex. R f learned counsel for respondents el for the petitioners that though has placed on record a number number of witnesses to prove ondent no.1 in number of cases, umber of documents, the learn

een d as The 8 to ates ased has has ssed ated aini. ught 279, sing nkar R81 s. It r of yet

cou cas cou cou own of inv to circ rele was req no.

¶20tho inv exa for tha jeep

unsel for respondent no.3 insur e involvement of offending truc ses mentioned by him. It has unsel for the petitioners that in unsel for respondent no.3, Hari ner of the offending vehicles. Si transporter, the owners of veh volved in the accidents might hav obtain the vehicle on superda cumstances on the basis of powe eased by respondent no.1 Haris s driver of the vehicle. If the acc quired to be registered. It cannot e part of petitioners to falsely imp HR-38K/7072.

The learned counsel for th ough the learned counsel for resp volvement of truck no.HR-38K amination of PW5 Naresh Kuma respondents has specifically su e jeep, the driver of truck had bl at even respondents have admitte p at the time of alleged accident,

rance company has failed to pr k no. HR-38K/7072 in any of further been argued by learn all the cases produced by learn ish Kumar has not been shown ince he is carrying on the busin hicles of other districts which ve told the present respondent n ari on their behalf. Only in th er of attorney the vehicles were sh Kumar. In some of the cases cident had taken place the FIR w t be said to be any manipulation plicate respondent no.1 or his tr he petitioner has pointed out t pondents has tried to prove the fa K/7072 yet at the time of cro ar, an eye witness, learned coun uggested him that while overtak lown the horn, which clearly sho ed the presence of truck behind ,

rove ned ned n as ness are no.1 hose got s he was n on ruck that alse oss-nsel king

¶21ma has No. veh title Nah par "it hav in f who In ma bun The help ava too

By examining official e documents of MACT cases an tters, the learned counsel for re s proved that the present respon . HR-38K/7072 was involved in e capacity of owner or in the c hicles. Ex. R48 copy of judgmen ed as Roshni Devi Vs. Kulwan hta, the then learned Motor Ac ra no.13 of the said judgment. It has been proved on the record ve filed this petition in connivanc fact it is handy work of one Ha o had always been ready to play this case also the respondents de a tool by said Harish Kumar e offending vehicle. Harish Kuma e cases of hit and run. Thus th ndle of lies and the entire eviden e petitioners have simply tried to lp and connivance of responden ailable to the petitioners at the i ols".

witnesses and by placing on rec nd also criminal cases in accid espondent no.3-insurance compa ndent no.1 driver of offending tr n a number of claim cases either capacity of driver of the offend nt dated 2.2.2002 in MACT petit nt Singh etc. decided by Shri N ccident Claims Tribunal, Karna has been specifically observed t d beyond doubt that the petition ce with respondents no.1 and 2 a Harish Kumar son of Shankar D y any role in the hit and run cas no. 1 and 2 seemed to have b r to become a driver and owner ar who is found Omni present in his claim petition is nothing bu nce seems to have been fabricat o claim false compensation with nts no.1 and 2, who were read instance of Harish Kumar being

cord dent any ruck r in ding tion N.C. l in that ners Dass ses. een r of n all ut a ted. dily

¶22Sh. Kar obs cas driv be resp Sum

¶23cla to driv

¶24com dam who on per truc res ditc pho

EX. P50 copy of award date Dhani Ram, the then learned rmal. in case titled Surender K servations have been made by se of hit and run and the decease ven by some unknown person. T result of fabrication and pondents no.1 and 2 and Haris mo on superdari as attorney.

In these circumstance imants to prove that on 23.6.200 rash and negligent driving of ver of truck no. HR-38K/7072.

The learned counsel f mpany had conducted survey mage to jeep No. HR-05K/4532 t o has been examined as RW12. record as Ex.R3 and the technic ere was no impact/damage on the rtinent to mention here that as p ck no.HR-38K/7072 had hit the ult of which it turned turtle and ches. The surveyor S.K.Mak otographs of jeep no. HR-05K/

d 29.4.2003 passed by the Cour d Motor Accident Claims Tribun Kaur Vs. Raj Kumar also show t the learned Tribunal that it wa ed was hit by some unknown veh The claim petition was observed connivance between claima sh Kumar who had taken the T es, the onus lies heavily upon 03 the accident had taken place Harish Kumar, respondent no. for the respondent no. 3-insura and had also assessed the lo through Shri S.K. Makkar, Survey His survey report has been pla cal opinion has been expressed t e rear back side of the vehicle. I per story of claimants, the offend e jeep from the left back side a d hit Indica car and finally fell i kkar RW12 had also taken K/4532 as Ex. R84 to Ex.R92 a

rt of nal. that as a icle d to nts, Tata due . 1. nce oss/ eyor aced that It is ding as a

neg Ex. sho Ma chi que sta

¶25jeep truc a re hit as HR rec no. occ Pet Ha cau truc

gatives thereof as Ex. R93 to Ex. R92 rear portion of the jeep b own and no damage on the re akkar, Surveyor RW12 has specif ief that on vehicle inspection, it estion has been damaged from th impact or damage to rear/bac ted that in the photographs ther e jeep.

As per story of claiman p no. HR-05K/4532 was going f ck no. HR-38K/7072 was comin d negligent manner from the bac esult of which the jeep crossed t an Indica car bearing no. PB 11 a result of this accident Tek Ra R-05K/4532 had died and the re ceived injuries.. Bhupinder Singh PB-115/4327 had also died d cupants of Indica car had receiv titions titled as Mava Devi Vs rish Kumar have been filed on t used due to rash and negligent d ck no. HR-38K/7072. The third

R101. In photographs Ex. R91 a bearing no.HR-05K/4532 has b ear portion has been shown. S fically stated in his examination-t was observed that the vehicle he front and left side and there w ck side of the jeep. He has furt re is no damage on the back side nts, the accident had taken place from Madhuban to Chandigarh a ng at very high speed and in r ck side and hit the jeep from back the divider on the opposite side a 15/4327 and finally fell into ditch am who was travelling in jeep emaining occupants of the jeep h h who was travelling in Indica due to accident and the remain ved multiple and grievous injur s. Harislı Kumar and Naresh the plea that the accident had b driving of respondent no. 1 drive petition titled as Gurdev Singh

een S.K. -in-e in was ther e of e as rash k as hes, no. had car ning ries. Vs. een r of

Ha par has no. jeep bee acc resp Rat ras 05K pet Raj has car bee Ma Bho wro occ suc exa from

rish Kumar etc.. though has bee ra no.25 of the said petition,. it s been caused due to sole rash a 1 driver of truck no. HR-38K/7 p no. HR-05K/4532. During th en argued by learned counsel cident had taken place due t pondent no. I Harish Kumar d ther it has been argued that the sh and negligent driving of resp K/4532. It is pertinent to ment titioner in petition titled as Gur jiv Kaushal has been examined s placed on record his affidavit r no. PB-115/4327 on 23.6.2003 en deposed by him that at 9.15 Λ asana on G.T. Road. jeep bea oop Singh rashly and negligen ong side after crossing the divid e car which was being driven b cupants of the car received injur ccumbed to his injuries. He was amination it has been stated by m a distance of 100 meters. Ther

en filed on the same ground, ye t has been stated that the accid and negligent driving of respond 7072 and respondent no.4 driver he course of arguments, it has for petitioner Gurdev Singh t to rash and negligent driving driver of truck no. HR-38K/70 e accident had been caused due ondent no.4 driver of jeep no. H tion here that learned counsel rdev Singh Vs. Harish Kumar e as PW7 in additional evidence. Ex. P26. He was driver of Ind

¶3In the affidavit it has specifica Λ.Μ. when they reached near vill aring no. HR-05K/4532 driven ntly and at high speed came fr der of G.T.road and straight-way by him as a result of which all ries and Constable Bhupinder Sin cross-examined at length. In cro y him that he had noticed the j re was no truck going from Delh

et in dent dent r of not that g of

¶072e to HR-for etc.. He dica ally age by from y hit ngh oss-jeep

Am driv acc bac HR was Ha pre 11S Cha

¶25he due HR

¶26wit ask jeep whe cro dam reg

mbala side. The accident had tak ving of driver of the jeep. No cident and no truck was presen ck side on the jeep in question do R-38K/7072 has been falsely invo s not present on G.T.road at th rish Kumar respondent no.1 esent accident. Since Rajiv Kau S/4327 had received injuries andigarlı his statement was r

6.2003. It has been specifically had mentioned in his statement e to rash and negligent driving R-05K/4532 i.e. Bhoop Singh resp

As per allegation in th e hit caused by truck the jeep no d hit Indica car no. PB-11S-43 tness of the said accident. In cro ked as to whether there was an p had crossed the divider. He ether the divider has suffered a ossed the divider. He had volu maged. His statement was also gard to damage to the jeep pend

ken place due to rash and neglig o truck was involved in the s nt at that time. So the impact fr oes not arise. The truck bearing olved in the present accident an at time. He has further stated t has been falsely involved in ushal driver of Indica car no. P and he was referred to P recorded at PGI Chandigarh stated by Rajiv Kaushal PW7 t t that the accident had taken pl g of the driver of jeep bearing pondent no.4. he petitions due to heavy impac o. HR-05K/4532 crossed the divi 27, Bhoop Singh PW14 is the ss-examination he was specifica ny damage to the divider when e has replied that he cannot any damage or not, when the j unteered that the divider must o recorded in M.A.C.T. case w ding at Karnal before the Tribun

gent said from no. nd it that PB-PGI. on that lace no. ct of ider eye ally say jeep be with

The cou sta eye diff

¶27in itse pre has sam dep pre car of t

¶28wit resp pet No. wit con

e Copy of his statement has b unsel for respondent no.3 as Ex ted that there was no damage to e witness of the said accident i fferent times.

The learned counsel for the the cross-examination of Nares e respondents have specifically a elf proves that the counsel for r esence of truck. This argument s no force, as the petitioners th me footings. Petitioners Smt. M posed about the presence of truc e time of accident, whereas Gurd esence of truck on G.T.road. PW r has specifically deposed that th the truck have been falsely implic

Learned counsel for thholding of best evidence by pondent no.1 as RW, yet this titioners also has no force as app .1 alleged driver of truck no. HR tness box only to avoid cross-nfrontation with all the docume

been placed on record by learn . 106. In the said statement he o the divider. The witness who w is making statements differently petitioners have tried to show t sh Kumar PW, learned counsel asked about blowing of horn wh respondents have also admitted of learned counsel for petition hemselves are not standing on Mava Devi and Naresh Kumar h ck no. HR 38K/7072 on G.T.road dev Singh petitioner has denied W7 Rajeev Kaushal driver of Ind he truck and respondent no.1 dri cated. r petitioners have argued ab y not examining Harish Kum argument of learned counsel pparently Harish Kumar respond R-38K/7072 has not stepped into examination and further to av ents placed on record by learn

ned has was y at that for hich ners ave d at dica iver bout mar for dent void

cou imp by bee Ha as R exa

¶29by cou abs cop The hav arg

¶30pre lea of s Gia sen ser

unsel for respondent no. 3-ins plication of the vehicles either o Harish Kumar respondent no.1 en observed that the truck no. HR e instance of petitioners and in rish Kumar. Rather examination RW would damage the case of p amined as witness of the respond

Though, the considera learned counsel for respondent unsel for petitioners on the gr sence of examination of the wi pies and have been brought by c ey cannot be rejected altogethe ve not been examined to pro gument of learned counsel for the

With regard to admis esence of truck no.HR-38K-7072 rned counsel for petitioners ha e ground of non-examination of t statements made by B. B. Yadav an Chand. Perusal of the file s nt to official concerned from E rvice was affected. Bailable w

surance company in which fa owned by Harish Kumar or dri 1 has been shown. It has alrea HR-38K/7072 was falsely involved n connivance with respondent n n of Harish Kumar respondent n petitioners, with this fear he was dents. ation of documents placed on rec no.3 has been opposed by learn round of admissibility and in tnesses, yet these are the certif concerned officials from the Cou r on the ground that the witnes ove these documents. Hence, e petitioners is also rejected. ssion of the documents showing at L.N.J.P. Hospital-111, Delhi, ve objected to these documents the witnesses. These are only cop v Senior Assistant (Personnel) a shows that previously notices w Era Constructions, New Delhi a warrants were also ordered to

alse iven ady d at no.1 no.1 not cord ned fied urts. sses this s on pies were

issu cou he hea Sah und Insp circ clo wer reg rec reje

¶31Kar dam rec sho unl

7.0 hos noo De acc

ued number of times. On 14.6.2 uld not be examined as he had n was directed to bring the com aring, B. B. Yadav was not fee hu,. Personnel Officer, Era Co der taken to produce B. B. Ya pite of that on the next date cumstances evidence of all the sed by orders of the Court. In th re made by B. B. Yadav Senior A garding damage of the jeep pe cord by learned counsel for r ected altogether.

By placing on record copy o ram Chand which was recorded mages of Jeep no. HR-05K/4532 cord as Ex. R114, learned couns ow that truck no. HR-38K/7072 h loading building material on 22 00/7.30 A.M. material was unloa spital, it had gone for refilling o on/ 1.00 P.M. the vehicle had lhi. On that day i.e. on 23.6.20 cident. It is pertinent to mentio

005 B.B. Yadav was present but ot brought the complete record a mplete record. On the next date eling well and in his place Ana onstructions, was present and h adav on the next date of heari e, he was not present. In th e respondents was ordered to his eventuality the statements wh Assistant (Personnel) in claim c ending at Karnal were placed respondent no.3. They cannot of statement of Gian Chand son d in claim case at Karnal relating 2, copy of which has been placed sel for respondent no.3 has tried had gone in G.B. Pant Hospital

2.6.2003. On 23.6.2003 at arou aded and after coming out from of fuel. On 23.6.2003 at around d again started for Firakpur fr 03, his truck had not met with a on here that said Gian Chand

t he e of had ing. hese be hich case on be n of g to d on d to for und d 12 from any

bee cap lea P.L Reg aut cas truc evid cer oth Ex. Ex. Ex. Era jeep

¶32resp tha doe The diff also

en shown to be real owner of t pacity of owner of truck, he ha rned counsel for the petitioners L.R. 159 titled as United India gional Manager. Chandigarh an thority is not applicable to the f se the plea was taken in the w ck was out of Punjab on the dence was produced. In the p rtified copy of statement of origi her case. It cannot be said that t P107 copy of inward materi R108 material receipt slip, EX R110 copy of statement of B.B. Y a Constructions, placed on recor p, also support the plea of respo

With regard to pen pondent no.1. there are number at even if there is criminal case p es not ipso-facto prove negligen e proceedings in claim petition fferent. Hence, this argument of o having no legs to stand.

truck no. HR-38K/7072 and in ad deposed in the court. Thou have placed reliance upon 1989 a Insurance Co. Ltd. through nd another, yet the ratio of the s facts of the present case, as in t written statement that the offend e day of occurrence but no s present case by placing on rec inal owner of the truck recorded the evidence is deficient. Moreo ial register of Era Constructio X. R109 copy of stock register a Yadav. Senior Assistant (Personn rd in the claim case for damages ndent no.3. ndency of criminal case aga of authorities, in which the rati pending before a criminal court nce of driver of offending vehi n before the Tribunal are entir f learned counsel for petitioners

ugh. 9(1) its said that ding uch cord d in ver. ons. nel) s of inst o is t. It cle. rely

¶33gun whe wit also

¶34in col Adv atte Cha of Am atto Ex. obt bee vid Adv on R12 of Ahm

This fact should also nman of Tek Ram deceased wa en the alleged accident took pla tness of the petitioners, inspite o o injured. This also raises suspic

The learned counsel fo all the claim cases which we llusion with the driver and ow vocate had filed petitions on b ention of the Court towards co and in criminal case titled as St 2003 under sections 279, 337, mit Bansal Advocate. Copy of orney of the counsel have been R116. Vide order dated 17.7.2 tained bail orders of accused Ha en placed on record as Ex.R117 de which vehicle was taken on s vocate as Ex. R118. Vide order d d presence of Shri Amit Bansal A record as Ex.R119 and copy

¶20Learned counsel for respond the court towards claim petitio med placed on record as Ex. R

o not be lost sight of that Roh as also travelling in the same j ace. He has not been examined of fact that he was eye witness a cion. for respondents has pointed out t ere instituted by the claimants wner of truck. Shri Amit Ban behalf of claimants. He has dra opy of application moved by G tate Vs. Harish Kumar. FIR no. 1 338,304-A 1PC on behalf of S f said application and power placed on record as Ex.R115 a 2003. Shri Amit Bansal Advoc arish Kumar, the certified copy and copy of order dated 18.7.20 superdari through Sh. Amit Ban dated 3.12.2003 charge was fram Advocate was marked, copy pla of order dated 29.12.2003 as dent no.3 has also drawn attent on titled Suresh Bala Vs. Dilsh 127 which was filed through Sh

htas jeep d as that s in nsal awn Gian Shri r of cate has nsal med ced Ex. tion had

D. lea tow Shr join pla Soo R12 Sh. resp Adv rep Shr pet

¶35tha had resp one who 05K inc rec

Sood Advocate, who is also rned counsel for respondents h wards copy of power of attorney ri. A. D. Sood Advocate and Sh ntly written. The learned coun aced on record copies of photo od, Advocale as Ex..R121 to Ex.R 26 which also show the joint na Amit Bansal Advocate. It has b pondents that the present petitio vocate and in the criminal c presented by Sh. Amit Bansal A ri A. D. Sood Advocate which c titioners and respondent no.1.

Under issue no. 1 the at on 23.6.2003 at 9.15 A.M. on G d taken place due to rash and n pondent no.1 driver of offending e case learned counsel for claim e of the claimants as PW1. He is o had been travelling in Indica K/4532. PWI father of Bhupind come of his son. Randir Singh cord proving that Tek Ram de

counsel in the present case. T has drawn attention of the Co y as Ex.R128 in which the name h. Amit Bansal Advocate have b nsel for respondent no.3 has a ographs of Chamber of Shri A. R123 and negatives Ex. R124 to ames of Sh.A.D. Sood Advocate a been argued by learned counsel on was filed through Sh. A.D So case accused Harish Kumar w Advocate who was practising w learly shows collusion between e claimants were required to pr G.T.road near Masana the accid negligent driving of Harish Kum g truck no. HR-38K/7072. To pr mants has examined Gurdev Sin s son of Bhupinder Singh decea car which was hit by jeep no. H der Singh deceased has proved PW2 has brought the summon eceased was posted as DSP.

The ourt e of een also D. Ex. for ood was with rove dent mar rove ngh ased HR-ned 4th

Bat bee dec Gup PW cer lea Tek 05K acc cla side div opp insu wri sup Cou sho veh has acc or

ttalion, Madhuban. His date of en proved by him. PW3 is Sm ceased who is not an eye witnes pta who has stated about the ad W6 is Sandeep Sharma Consta rtificate of Bhupinder Singh dec rned counsel for claimants hav k Ram deceased as PW5. He w K/4532 at the time of alleged ac cident. He has re-iterated the im petition that truck no. HR-38 de and it was in high speed. It h e left back side. The impact was vider and hit Indica car no. PB-posite side. The learned cou urance company has placed on r itten statements. applications for perdaginamas and the awards in urts, in which the present respon own to be involved either as dr hicle. In award placed on recor s specifically observed that Hari cident cases either in the capacit in the capacity of driver of

f birth and salary certificates h mt. Maya Devi wife of Tek R ss to the accident. PW4 is Dr. Vi dmission of injured in his hospi able who has brought the sal ceased. On the point of negligen ve examined Naresh Kumar son was also travelling in jeep no. H ccident. He is the eye witness of stand taken by petitioners in th 8K/7072 was coming from the b had hit jeep no. HR-05K/4532 fr s so high that the jeep crossed -11S/4327 which was coming fr unsel for the respondent No. record the copies of claim petitio r taking the vehicles on superda various claim petitions by differ ndent no. I Harish Kumar has b river or as owner of the offend rd as Ex.P40, the learned Tribu ish Kumar is omni present in all ty of owner of the offending veh offending vehicle. In number

ave Ram Vijay ital. lary nce. n of HR-f the heir ack from from 3-ons, ari,. rent een ding unal icle

jud col cap cla Kum Kum filin was driv resp add exa wit of resp for cou Kum driv tak wh

dgments, it has been observed th llusion with Harislı Kumar or a e present case also Harish Kum pacity of driver of the truck. It i im petitions titled as Mava De mar Vs. Harish Kumar the evide e accident had caused due to ras mar driver of offending truck ng of petition titled as Gurdev S s taken that the accident had tak ving of respondent no.1 drive pondent no.4 driver of jeep N ducing evidence of the petitioner amine any other witness except G tness nor had deposed anything either truck no. HR-38K/7072 pondents had examined 13 wit additional evidence and by unsel for the petitioner in claim mar has examined Rajiv Kausha ver of Indica car no. PB 11S/43 ken in the petition he has depos e petition the involvement of th ile deposing in the court he has

hat the claim petitions were filed at the instance of Harish Kumar mar had offered his services in is pertinent to mention here tha evi Vs. Harish Kumar and Nar dence has been led on the point t sh and negligent driving of Har no. HR-38K/7072. At the time Singh Vs. Harish Kumar, the sta ken place due to rash and neglig er of truck no.HR-33K/7072 a No. HR-05K/4532. At the time rs, petitioner Gurdev Singh did Gurdev Singh, who was neither with regard to negligence of dri or jeep no. HR-05K/4532. Wh tnesses, an application was mo way additional evidence, learn m petition Gurdev Singh Vs. Har al as PW7 who was alleged him

¶327Instead of taking the stand sed on altogether different lines. he truck has been shown: wher s specifically stated that there w

d in r. In t in resh that rish e of gent e of not eye iver When ved ned rish self d as . In reas

also Ha acc rec nec of i star rela bee tha offe sho P. H wou to 11S acc resp exa stor pla no.

truck on G.T.road at that time g o been stated by him that the tr rish Kumar respondent no.1 ha cident. It appears that when corded learned counsel to petiti cessary to record the statement of indica car no. PB-11S/4327. Th rted examining the official wi ating to involvement of respond d also criminal cases relating to en examined, learned counsel fo at the false involvement of Ha fending truck no. HR-38K/7072 owing that the truck no. HR-38K Hospital Delhi on 23.6.2003, t uld also be proved, he took diffe examine Rajiv Kaushal allege S/4327. In his affidavit Ex. P26 cident had taken place due t pondent no. 1 driver of truck amination he has stated so.. Rat ry that no truck was involved in ace due to rash and negligent d 4 driver of jeep no. HR 38K

going from Delhi to Ambala. It ruck has been falsely involved a as also been falsely involved in the evidence of petitioners w ioner Gurdev Singh did not find of Rajiv Kaushal, the alleged dri he evidence of the respondents w itnesses who had brought rec dent no. 1 in number of claim ca o accident. After 13 witnesses h or petitioner Gurdev Singh reali rish Kumar the alleged driver 2 would be proved and also K/7072 was lying parked at L. N the false involvement of the tr erent turn and moved an applicat ed driver of Indica car No. P 6 it was no where stated that to rash and negligent driving k no. HR-05K/7072 nor in cro ther he came forward with differ n the said accident and it had ta driving of Bhoop Singh, respond K/4532. The petition was filed

has was d it iver was cord ases had ized r of by N. J. ruck tion PB-g of oss-rent ken dent

4.8 on resp Kau pre rec pla Sin diff tak driv no. driv pro pla HR wit oth Pho bac truc

8.2003 and the driver of Indica c

8.11.2005 i.e. after 28 months, pondents was on the verge of co ushal driver of India car no. eviously recorded in P.G.I. Chan ceiving injuries in which he has ace due to rash and negligent d ngh driver of jeep no. HR-30K fferent stand was taken by petitio ken place due to rash and neg ver of truck No. HR -05K/7072 HR-30K/4532, the previous s ver of Indica car no. PB-11S/4 ove the assertion that previously d negligent driving of responden aced on record by Surveyor of in e oral version of the claimants. A R-05K/7072 had hit the jeep no. th such a force that it had crosse her side of the G.T-road and ult otographs EX.R91 and Ex. R92 ck side of the Jeep. Rather the e left side of the jeep which is not ck hit the jeep with such a force

car no. PB-11S/4327 was examin particularly when the evidence ompletion. As per statement of Ra . PB-11S/4327 his statement w ndigarh where he was referred af stated that the accident had ta driving of respondent no.4. Bho K/4532. Since in the petition oner Gurdev that the accident h gligent driving of respondent n and respondent no.4 driver of j statement made by Rajiv Kaus 4327 was withheld. Now he can also he had taken the stand of r nt no.4. Moreover, the photograp nsurance company do not tally w As per version of claimants truck . HR-38K/4532 from the back s ed the divider, hit the indica car timately fell into the ditches. In 2 no damage has been shown on damage which has been shown t the story of the claimants. Had e, it is not believable that from

ned e of aiiv was fter ken oop n a had no.1 jeep shal nnot rash phs with no. side r on

bac sho Sur doe from HR from its

¶36Kum pet 05K neg of t for due Bho

¶38dec resp

ck side jeep would not be dama own to have been misplaced rveyor has stated that there is d es not prove the story of petition m back side with much force. It R-05K/7072 was not involved in m the insurance company of tru driver respondent No.1 have bee

In petitions titled as mar etc. and Naresh Kumar Vs. titioners has miserably failed to p K/7072 and the accident havi gligent driving of Harish Kumar, truck no. HR-05K/7072.

¶7In petition titled as Gu e evidence has been led beyond the petitioner has failed to prov e to rash and negligent driving e alleged driver of truck no. H oop Singh, driver of jeep no. HR

In view of foregoing cided against the petitioners an pondent no.1 Harish Kumar."

aged. Only lower bumper has b towards lower side. Even if dent on the back side of the jeep ners that the truck had hit the j It shows that the truck bearing n the accident and only to take cla uck no. HR-05K/7072 the truck a en falsely implicated. Smt. Mava Devi etc. Vs. Har Harish Kumar learned counsel prove involvement of truck no. H ing taken place due to rash a r, respondent no.1 the alleged dri urdev Singh Vs. Harish Kumar pleadings and the learned coun ve that the accident had taken pl of Harish Kumar, respondent no HR-05K/7072 and respondent N R-38K/4532. g discussions issue no.l is her nd in favour of respondents exc

een p, it jeep no.. aim rish for HR-iver etc. nsel lace o.1, No.4 reby

10.

A p oral as well as d the ground that Rather the dama claimants. If th would have dam the offending tr offending vehic under the MACT

11.

A p i.e. 23.06.2003 a criminal trial un 1860, which fu Surveyor admitt photograph Ex.R dent on the left which he inspec Tribunal is with

12.

Paw Magistrate, IIn summoned file taken superdari shows him to b before the learn

perusal of the above shows that l documentary evidence on record in the photograph no damage is age is shown on the left side of th he truck would have hit the jee maged. Therefore, the Tribunal h ruck. It further held that since cle is a habitual offender in mo T are registered against him, ther perusal of the record shows that at 1:15 PM. Harish Kumar drive nder Sections 279, 337, 338, 340 urther proves the factum of a ted in his cross-examination that R/87. He further admitted that in side of water panel. He further cted damage was on the left sid out application of judicial mind. wan Kumar, Additional Ahlmad nd Class, Kaithal, was examin of all criminal cases. As per r i of the offending truck and re e the owner of the truck. The r ned Tribunal, in which, Harish K

learned Tribunal totally ignored and dismissed the claim petition shown on the back-side of the je he jeep which is not the story of ep with such a force then the j held that there is no involvemen e the driver (Harish Kumar) of tor accident cases and many ca refore, the claim was rejected. t FIR was lodged on the same er of the offending truck was fac 0, 304-A of the Indian Penal Co accident. RW-12 Sh. S.K.Makk t left side of the Jeep was broken n Ex.R/89 (photograph), there wa r admitted that the jeep in quest de. Reasoning given by the learn

d to the Court of learned Judi ned as RW-2, who brought recovery memo, Harish Kumar h egistration certificate of the tru record of many FIRs was produ Kumar was driver of the offend

n on eep. f the eep nt of ases day cing ode, kar, n in as a tion ned cial had uck uced

vehicle which s registered again Penal Code, 186 concerned. The superdari of the held that Harish Tribunal totally

13.

In dismissing the passed by total to be set aside. SETTLED LAW

14.

Ho compensation w Kumar Vs. Aja held as under:- Gen

¶5ma com res awa wro equ

shows that the driver Harish Ku nst him under Sections 279, 33

¶60The judicial record of the c e learned Tribunal even after e offending vehicle taken by Har h Kumar cannot be omnipresent ignored the judicial record place view of the above reasoning gi claim petition of the appellant non-application of judicial mind W ON COMPENSATION n'ble Supreme Court has set with respect to the disability. T ay Kumar and Another (2011) neral principles relating to comp The provision of the Motor Ve kes it clear that the award mpensation should, to the exte tore the claimant to the position arding damages is to make goo ong done as far as money can uitable manner. The court or

umar was involved in many FI 37, 338, 340, 304-A of the Ind cases was produced by the Ahlm examining the record regard rish Kumar driver respondent N in all the cases of hit and run. T ed before it. iven by the learned Tribunal wh ts is not acceptable. The award d. Accordingly, the award is lia ttled the law regarding grant The Apex Court in the case of ) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, mpensation in injury cases Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for sho must be just, which means t ent possible, fully and adequa n prior to the accident. The objec od the loss suffered as a resul n do so, in a fair, reasonable a tribunal shall have to assess

IRs, dian mad ding No.1 The hile d is able t of Raj has ort) that tely ct of

dam or disa be suff com tho inju hav Ltd

¶6inju Pec

(i) tran

(ii) ma

(iii) Da

(iv) inju

mages objectively and exclude f fancy, though some conjecture ability and its consequences, is compensated for the physical inj ffered as a result of such inju mpensated for his inability to le ose normal amenities which he uries, and his inability to earn a ve earned. (See C.K. Subramoni 70 Supreme Court 376, R.D. H d., 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker v The heads under which com ury cases are the following : cuniary damages (Special Dama Expenses relating to treatm nsportation, nourishing food, an Loss of earnings (and other ga de had he not been injured, comp

(a) Loss of earning during th

(b) Loss of future earnings on ) Future medical expenses. N mages) ) Damages for pain, suffering an uries.

from consideration any speculat e with reference to the nature inevitable. A person is not only njury, but also for the loss which ury. This means that he is to ead a full life, his inability to en e would have enjoyed but for as much as he used to earn or co ia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, A Hattangadi v. Pest Control (Ind v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467). mpensation is awarded in perso ages) ment, hospitalization, medicin nd miscellaneous expenditure. ains) which the injured would h mprising : he period of treatment; n account of permanent disabilit Non-pecuniary damages (Gene nd trauma as a consequence of

tion e of y to h he be njoy ould AIR dia) onal nes, ave ty. eral

(v)

(vi) In r und whe of t hea acc am exp

19.

(i) A res

(ii) who loss ear disa evid sam

(iii) sub evid

Loss of amenities (and/or loss of ) Loss of expectation of life (shor routine personal injury cases, c der heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It ere there is specific medical ev the claimant, that compensation ads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) rel count of permanent disability, enities (and/or loss of prosp pectation of life. xxx

xxx We may now summarise the pr All injuries (or permanent disab ult in loss of earning capacity. The percentage of permanen ole body of a person, cannot b s of earning capacity. To put it d rning capacity is not the same ability (except in a few cases, w dence, concludes that percentag me as percentage of permanent d ) The doctor who treated an inju bsequently to assess the extent of dence only in regard the extent

of prospects of marriage). rtening of normal longevity). compensation will be awarded o t is only in serious cases of inju vidence corroborating the evide n will be granted under any of lating to loss of future earnings future medical expenses, loss pects of marriage) and loss xxx

xxx rinciples discussed above : bilities arising from injuries), do nt disability with reference to e assumed to be the percentage differently, the percentage of loss e as the percentage of perman where the Tribunal on the basis ge of loss of earning capacity is disability). ured-claimant or who examined h of his permanent disability can g of permanent disability. The loss

only ury, ence f the s on s of of not e of s of nent s of him give

ear Tri

(iv) of l nat fac

¶20wit Illu ear evid inju per how bec gra Illu is a

rning capacity is something tha ibunal with reference to the evide ) The same permanent disability loss of earning capacity in diffe ture of profession, occupation ctors. The assessment of loss of fu th reference to the following ustration 'A' : The injured, a w rning Rs. 3000/- per month at th dence, the permanent disability ury was 60% and the consequ rson was quantified at 30%. wever assessed by the Tribunal cause the claimant is continue ade. Calculation of compensation a) Annual income before the b) Loss of future earning per (15% of the prior annual inc c) Multiplier applicable with d) Loss of future earnings : ( ustration 'B' : The injured was a 00/- per month. His hand is amp assessed at 60%. He was termi

at will have to be assessed by ence in entirety. may result in different percenta ferent persons, depending upon or job, age, education and ot uture earnings is explained bel workman, was aged 30 years a he time of accident. As per Docto of the limb as a consequence of uential permanent disability to The loss of earning capacity l as 15% on the basis of eviden ed in employment, but in a low n will be as follows: e accident : Rs. 36,000/-. r annum come) : Rs. 5400/-. h reference to age : 17 (5400 x 17) : Rs. 91,800/- a driver aged 30 years, earning putated and his permanent disabi inated from his job as he could

ages ther low or's f the y is nce, wer Rs. ility

lon Tri 75% Illu Eng two The inc ass cap wil a) M hav Eng b) L (70 c) M d) L

nger drive. His chances of gettin d even if he got any job, the sala ibunal therefore assessed his lo %. Calculation of compensation a) Annual income prior to th b) Loss of future earning per (75% of the prior annual inc c) Multiplier applicable with d) Loss of future earnings : ( ustration 'C' : The injured w gineering student. As a result of o months, his right hand was a e permanent disablement was as capacitated to pursue his chose sistance of a servant throughout pacity was also assessed as 70% ll be as follows : Minimum annual income he wou ve got if had been employed as a gineer

Loss of future earning per annum 0% of the expected annual incom Multiplier applicable (25 years) Loss of future earnings : (42000

ng any other employment was bl ary was likely to be a pittance. T loss of future earning capacity will be as follows : e accident : Rs. 36,000/- . r annum come) : Rs. 27000/-. h reference to age : 17 (27000 x 17) : Rs. 4,59,000/- was 25 years and a final y of the accident, he was in coma amputated and vision was affect ssessed as 70%. As the injured w en career and as he required t his life, the loss of future earn %. The calculation of compensat uld an

: Rs. 60,000/-m me) : Rs. 42000/-

: 18 x 18) : Rs. 7,56,000/-

leak The y as year for ted. was ning

[No hyp act

15.

Ho Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sections 166, 1 aspects:-

(A) mu

(B)

(C)

(D) esta

(E) age The

ote : The figures adopted in pothetical. The figures in Illust tuals taken from the decision in A n'ble Supreme Court in the case y Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 63-A and 168 of the Motor Ve ) Deduction of personal an ultiplicand; ) Selection of multiplier depen ) Age of deceased on basis for ) Reasonable figures on con ate, loss of consortium and funer ) Future prospects for all cate es: with permanent job; self-emp e relevant portion of the judgmen " Therefore, we think it seems to us that reasonabl namely, loss of estate, loss o should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40 The principle of revisiting principle. But the revisit sho centric. We think that it wou we have quantified should b

n illustrations (A) and (B) tration (C) however are based Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra)]. e of National Insurance Compa C 680] has clarified the law un ehicles Act, 1988, on the follow nd living expenses to determ nding on age of deceased; r applying multiplier; nventional heads, namely, loss ral expenses, with escalation; egories of persons and for differ ployed or fixed salary. nt is reproduced as under:- t seemly to fix reasonable sums le figures on conventional hea of consortium and funeral expen 0,000 and Rs.15,000 respectiv the said heads is an accepta uld not be fact-centric or quantu uld be condign that the amount t be enhanced on percentage basis

are on any nder wing mine of rent s. It ads, nses ely. able um-that

16.

Ho Express Tran. C " 7

(a) age Ins effe Tra gro fac for con app

(b) disa

every three years and the en 10% in a span of three ye because that will bring in heads." n'ble Supreme Court in the ca Corpn. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 2159, has

¶7There are three aspects which ) the application of multiplier of The aforesaid increase of m e of the appellant as 23 years re urance Company Limited v. Pr 00 (SC). In para 46 of the said ectively affirmed the multiplier m e table in the case of Sarla V ansport Corporation and Anothe oup of 15-25 years, the multi ctoring in the extent of disability. The aforesaid position is not the respondent State Corpora nclusion that the multiplier to pellant has to be '18' and not '17 Loss of earning capacity of ability of 31.1%

nhancement should be at the rate ars. We are disposed to hold n consistency in respect of th ase of Erudhaya Priya Vs. St s held as under:- are required to be examined by f '17' instead of '18'; multiplier is sought on the basis elying on the judgment in Natio ranay Sethi and Others, 2017 A d judgment, the Constitution Ben method to be used as mentioned Verma (Smt) and Others v. De er, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . In the a iplier has to be '18' along w

t really disputed by learned coun ation and, thus, we come to o be applied in the case of 7'. of the appellant with perman

e of d so hose tate us: s of onal ACJ nch d in elhi age with nsel

com Jag Kha bel jud mu qua disa

In respect of the aforesa mpensation on what is stated to gdish v. Mohan & Others, 20 anuja v. Atul Dande & Another low the principle set out in the Ja "8. In assessing the compens need to be borne in mind. A temporary disability occasio award of compensation. The among others, the following

(i) Pain, suffering and tra

(ii) Loss of income includ

(iii) The inability of the vi with its amenities;

(iv) Medical expenses incl required to undertake

(v) Loss of expectation of The aforesaid principle has dgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanu ltiplier method was logically so antify the loss of income as ability suffered in an accident.

aid, the appellant has claim o be the settled principle set ou 018 ACJ 1011 (SC) and Sand r, 2017 ACJ 979 (SC). We extr agdish (supra) in para 8: sation payable the settled princip victim who suffers a permanent ned by an accident is entitled to award of compensation must co aspects: auma resulting from the accident ding future income; ctim to lead a normal life toget luding those that the victim may in future; and f life." [emphasis supplied] also been emphasized in an ear uja case (supra) opining that ound and legally well established a result of death or perman

med t in deep ract ples t or over t; ther y be rlier d to

disa occ und

In the factual contours of th ability certificate, it shows th casions for various number of 11 to January 2013. The natur der: "Nature of injury:

(i) compound fracture sha

(ii) fracture both bones lef

(iii) compound fracture bo

(iv) fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th

(v) subtrochanteric fractu

(vi) fracture shaft femur

(vii) fracture both bones lef We have also peruse petition showing the curren though it is stated by learne Corporation that the same w Be that as it may, this is the the nature of injuries itself been opined in para 13 of S while applying the multipl advancement in life and c consideration.

he present case, if we examine he admission/hospitalization on days over 1½ years from Aug re of injuries had been set out aft left humerus ft forearm th bones right forearm h metacarpals right hand ure right femur ft leg ed the photographs annexed to nt physical state of the appella ed counsel for the respondent St was not on record in the trial co e position even after treatment a f show their extent. Further, it Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) t lier method, future prospects career are also to be taken i

n 8 gust t as ant, tate urt. has that on

We are, thus, unequivo in the contention of the app with regard to future prospec of the appellant taking the p quantification of the same National Insurance Co. Ltd para 61(iii), considering th 50% of the actual salary in th

(c) The third and the last as 12% In respect of the afo down the interest rate durin view of the judicial pronoun case (supra). On this aspect dispute raised by the learne the claim was confined to applied by this Court. CONCLUSION

¶8The result of the afores principles, the calculation of set out in para 5 of the syno follows:

Heads Loss of earning power

ocally of the view that there is m pellant and the aforesaid princip cts must also be applied in the c permanent disability as 31.1%. T on the basis of the judgment d. case (supra), more specifica he age of the appellant, would he present case. spect is the interest rate claimed resaid, the appellant has wate ng the course of hearing to 9% ncements including in the Jagdis t, once again, there was no seri ed counsel for the respondent o 9% in line with the interest ra said is that relying on the sett f compensation by the appellant, opsis, would have to be adopted Awarded Rs. 9,81,978/-

erit ples case The t in ally d be d as ered % in sh's ious nce ates tled t, as

Rs. per

CONCLUSION

17.

In above referred

09.12.2005 is m of compensation Sr. No. M At Sp

¶4Tr

(Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100 Future prospects (50 per cent addition) Medical expenses including transport charges, nourishment, etc. Loss of matrimonial prospects Loss of comfort, loss of amenities mental agony Pain and suffering Total The appellant would, thus, 41,69,831/- as claimed along w r annum from the date of applica N view of the law laid down by to judgments, the present app modified accordingly. The appel n as per the calculations made he Heads Medical Expenses ttendant Charges pecial Diet ransportation

Rs.4,90,989/-Rs.18,46,864/-Rs.5,00,000/-Rs.1,50,000/-Rs.2,00,000/-Rs.41,69,831/-be entitled to the compensation with simple interest at the rate of ation till the date of payment. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in peal is allowed. The award da llant-claimant is entitled to amo ere-under:-Compensation Awarded Rs.10,000/-Rs.5,000/-Rs.5,000/-Rs.5,000/-

n of f 9% ated ount d

Lo fo Pa

To

18.

So Court in Dara S and R.Valli and Supreme Court per annum on th date of its realiz

19.

Res deposit the amo period of two m amount of co claimant/appella details to the Tri

20.

Dis

21.

Pen

September 27, tripti

oss of Income during treatment or 6 months ain & Suffering otal Compensation far as the interest part is conce Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shy d Others VS. Tamil Nandu State t Cases 107, the appellants-claim he enhanced amount from the da zation. spondent No.3 – United India ount of compensation along with months from today. The Tribuna ompensation along with int ant. The claimant/appellant is di ibunal. sposed off accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st

(SU

2024 Whether speaking/non-speak

Rs.15,000/- (2500 x 6) Rs.5,000/- Rs.90,000/- erned, as held by Hon'ble Supre yam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 31 e Transport Corporation (2022 mants are granted the interest @ ate of filing of claim petition, till Insurance Company is directed h interest with the Tribunal withi al is further directed to disburse terest in the account of irected to furnish his bank acco tand disposed of. UDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king : Speaking : Yes

eme 2) 5 9% d to in a