Saroj Rani and Ors v. Satnam Singh and Ors

IN T

Saroj Rani and O Satnam Singh an

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The against award da the Motor Veh Tribunal, Panip claimants. FACTS NOT IN

2.

Bri Kumar son of R village Mudki. respondents No. Satnam Singh r Pawan Kumar h sustained multip Hospital, Faridk

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

FA Da Others

VERSUS nd Others

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. N.K.Manchanda, Advocate for r. S.P.Garg, Advocate for the resp -.-

HARMA, J.

e present appeal has been pref ated 10.03.2006 passed in claim hicles Act, 1988, whereby the pat (for short, 'the Tribunal'), d N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are that 10 Ram Parkash, was going on scoo In the meanwhile, a bus .2 and 3 came from the side of A espondent No.1 in a rash and n he struck the same against him, ple injuries. He was immediat kot, where he succumbed to the i

JAB AND HARYANA ARH AO-3360-2006 (O&M) ate of Decision :-28.02.2025

....Appellants

....Respondents EEPTI SHARMA r the appellants. pondent-Insurance Co. ferred by the appellants-claima m petition filed under Section 166 e learned Motor Accident Clai dismissed the claim petition of

0.11.1998 at about 7.30 PM Paw oter near Patrol Pump in the area No.PB-11-H-1851 belonging Amritsar which was being driven negligent manner. On reaching n as a result of which Pawan Kum tely shifted to Medical College injuries.

ants 6 of ims wan a of to n by near mar e &

3.

Up written reply de negligent drivin on that day off

19.30 hours alo wine Shop situ coming from th applying brakes Scooterist/decea same into the st down. Accordin was picked up impugned accid driving of Scoot

4.

Fro issues:-

on notice, all the respondents a enying the impugned accident h ng of offending bus by responden fending bus started from Mudk ngwith passengers. About 1/2 k uated on the left side of the ro at Wine Shop at high speed and s and bus stopped there and then ased, being drunk, lost control tationary bus on left side behind ng further to them, driver of the and was got admitted in the dent was alleged to have been ter by the deceased himself. om the pleadings of the parties,

¶1Whether death of

10.11.1998 at 7.30 PM in t accident cause due to rash an 11-H-1851 by respondent N OPP.

¶2Whether Saroj Rani a upon deceased as alleged? If

appeared and filed their respect having been caused due to rash nt No.1. According to their versi ki Bus stand for Faridkot at ab kilometer from that place there oad. Respondent No.1 saw scoo d on seeing it he stopped the bus and bus was still in low gears. T over the Scooter and dashed d the front door, as a result he e Scooter, who was heavily dru hospital by respondent No.1. T caused due to rash and neglig the Tribunal framed the follow Pawan Kumar took place the area of village Mudki in r nd negligent driving of Bus No.P No.1, as alleged? If so its effe and Pariya Gupta were depende f so, its effect? OPP

tive and ion, bout is a oter s by The fell unk, The gent wing on oad PB-ect?

5.

Aft record, the le claimants/appell SUBMISSIONS

6.

Lea petition is dismi influence of liq himself that the allowed.

7.

Per argues on the li dismissed by the

8.

I h record of this ca

¶3Whether Ram Parkas claim petition were also de effect? OP Counter claimants

¶4If issue No.2 and 3 ar compensation and from who are entitled? OPA & OP CC.

¶5Whether this Court ha and 3.

¶6Whether claim petitio joinder of necessary parties?

¶7Relief. ter taking into consideration th earned Tribunal dismissed t lants filed the present appe S OF LEARNED COUNSELS arned counsel for the claiman issed on the ground that the dec quor and it was due to rash and accident took place. He, therefo r contra, learned counsel for th ines of the award and contends e learned Tribunal. He therefore, have heard learned counsel for ase.

sh etc. claimants of consolida ependents on deceased? If so, s. re proved, then to what amount om claimants and counter claima . as no jurisdiction as alleged? OPR on is bad for mis-joinder & n OPR 2 and 3. he pleadings and the evidence the claim petition. Hence eal for grant of compensati S FOR THE PARTIES nts-appellants contends that cla ceased Pawan Kumar was under d negligent driving of the decea ore, prays that the present appeal he respondent-Insurance Compa that the claim petition was righ , prays for dismissal of the appea the parties and perused the wh

ated its t of ants R-2 non-on ion. aim ased l be any, htly al.

9.

The "11 Paw cau No. aga acc by

¶12on bes The test acc bus be by sta Sat from nea dec by

e relevant portion of the award is

¶1It was contended on behal wan Kumar had died in the mo used due to rash and negligent .P11-H/1851 by Satnam Singh em, a case FIR No. 117 dated ainst him under sections 304-A/2 cident was attributed to rash and respondent No.1.

To lend colour to their subm the testimonies made by Chima sides the testimonies of Saroj R e claimants Saroj Rani AW1 as timonies made before the Court cident was caused due to rash s by respondent Chiman Lal AW the eye witnesses of the acciden claimant Saroj Rani, who by w ted that on that day he had seen tnam Singh in rash and negligen m Amritsar and was going to Fa ar petrol pump in the area of vil ceased Pawan Kumar due to ras Satnam Singh, as a result he s

s reproduced as under:- lf of the claimants that decea otor vehicular accident which w driving of of fending Bus bear h respondent No.1. According 11, 11, 1998 was also registe 279 IPC wherein also the impugn d negligent driving of offending B missions, they have placed relia an Lal AW2 and Kashmiri Lal A Rani AWI and Ram Parkash AW well as Ram Parkash AW7 in th t has also stated that the impugn and negligent driving of offend W2 Kashmiri Lal AW6 are stated nt, Chiman Lal AW2 was examin way of his affidavit Ex. AW2/A, n the offending bus being driven nt manner. The said bus was com aridkot. When the said bus reach llage Mudki then the same crush h and negligent driving of the sa ustained multiple injuries and w

ased was ring g to ered ned Bus nce AW2 W7. heir ned ding d to ned has n by ming hed hed, ame

rem Far test AW stan side Sin Paw Acc of neg wh

¶13No. ora cla due whe and atte Jud

moved to Shri Guru Gobind Si ridkot where he succumbed to h timony of Kashmiri Lal AW6, W6/A has stated that on that day nding with his Scooter in front o de and was going to Faridkot. T ngh respondent No.1 in a rash e bus to the wrong side and st wan Kumar, as a result he f cording to the learned counsel fo e eye witnesses coupled with tha doubt that the impugned accid gligent driving of offending bus ich Pawan Kumar had died.

On the other hand, learned . 1. and other respondents, con al assertions and oral testimonie imants it cannot be held that t e to rash and negligent driving of en respondent No. I already sto d negligent driving framed ag ention was drawn to a judgmen e Court of Shri Gurdev Singh, dge, Ferozepur by virtue of whic

ingh Medical College & Hospi is injuries. To the same effect is who by way of his affidavit y at about 7.30 p.m. deceased w of a Dhaba, a bus came from Mu The said bus was driven by Satn and negligent manner, he brou truck the same against Scooter fell down and received injur for the claimants, statements of b at of the claimant leaves no man dent was caused due to rash a by respondent No.1, as a resul counsel appearing for respond ntended that simply on the basis es of the witnesses examined by the impugned accident was cau of offending bus by respondent N ood acquitted of the charge of r gainst him in Criminal case. nt dated 3.8.2004, copy Ex. RX, , the then learned Addl. Sessi ch he acquitted respondent No.1

ital, Ex. was udki nam ught r of ries. both nner and lt of dent s of used No.1 rash My X, of ions 1 of

acc him tha und of C full eith jud

¶14cla Cou imp resp pla of M Civ Na

¶15by rul be suc ind

e offence under Section 304-A cident having been caused on acc mself. The learned counsel appe at at the time of accident the de der the influence of alcohol whi Chemical Examiner, copy Mark ly admissible as correctness of her party, reference to which dgment Ex. RX.

In reply to the arguments, imants that Civil Court cannot r urt for arriving at conclusion pugned accident was caused pondent No. 1 or of the decease aced reliance on the observation Madras in Mathuswami Vs. Si vil Reports, 9 as well as by the rayan Rao Vs. Shanta Bai & Or

There is no dispute about th the Hon'ble High Courts of M ing cited at bar, it is well settled bound by the order of the Crim ch proceedings. The Civil Cour dependent conclusion on the bas

of the IPC holding the impugn count of negligence of the decea earing for the respondents argu eceased was drunk and was tota ich is quite evident from the rep 'A'. The said report is alleged to f the same is not disputed by can very well be found in it was contended on behalf of rely on the findings of the Crimi on the question as to whether due to rash and negligence ed. To support his contention he ns made by the Hon'ble High Co iddan and others, 2005(3) Rec Andhra Pradesh High Court in rs 2004(2) Civil Court Cases, 40 he correctness of law as laid do Madras and Andhra Pradesh in d law that the Civil Court would minal Court on such a question rt is required to come to its o sis of evidence recorded by it in

ned ased ued ally port o be inal of has ourt cent n A.

¶09own not n in

pro Ga und gro Ku Ram cas ma

¶16evid was ins Paw he acc acc was pet acc Ex. Pum neg oth wh

oceedings. It has also been h negunta Balappa, 65 MLJ, dertake independent enquiry an ounds of acquittal in criminal mar Vs Etwari Sahu, AIR 195 m Narayan, AIR 1969 Pat., 10 se is not conclusive proof of licious intention is to be proved

In the light of the settled la dence produced by the claimants s eye witness of the accident. Th tance of Vishav Vishal alias So wan Kumar. In his very first inf was informed about the death o cident. He has named Kashmir cident. During the course of crim s examined as PW6. The claim tition has introduced Chiman La cident. As aforesaid, in his state AW2/A he has stated that w mp, Mudki it crushed the deceas gligent driving of the same by S her eye witness Kashmiri Lal AW ile driving the offending bus in

held in Pedda Venkatapathi 146 that the Civil Court sh nd not take into consideration Court as was held in Negen 58 pat. 229 and Satdeo Prasad 02 that the findings by the crimi f the malicious prosecution a by the plaintiff. aw on the point we shall consi s on the point. None of the claim he FIR in the case was lodged at onu, who was son of the deceas formation report he has stated t of his father in the motor vehicu ri Lal AW6 as eye witness of minal trial said Kashmiri Lal A mant, Saroj Rani in the first cla al AW2 as alleged eye witness of ement made by way of his affida when the bus reached near Pe sed Pawan Kumar due to rash a Satnam Singh respondent No.1. T W6 had stated that respondent No rash and negligent manner str

Ys hall dra Vs. inal and ider mant sed, that ular AW6 aim f the avit trol and The o. 1.

fell abo cor only com con bee Che was cor par

3.8 Ses jud tha inte con sho into infl pla acc neg

e same against the Scooter of th l down and sustained injuries, C out any Scooter with the decea rrectness of the testimony of Chi ly been introduced by claiman mpensation by any means Po nducted during which viscera of en sent to the Chemical Exam emical Examiner is on the reco s seen only marked, but the rrectness of the contents of the sa rty and reference of which can a

8.2004 of the Court of Shri Gur ssions Judge, Ferozepur, EX.R dicial notice of the contents of s at alcohol was detected in stoma estine, liver, spleen, kidney as w ncentration was estimated 166. ows that the deceased had taken o his blood before his acciden fluence of alcohol at the time w ace. The Court cannot ignore thi e basis of single oral statement of cident cannot be held to hav gligent driving of bus by resp

e deceased as a result of which Chiman lal AW2 is altogether sil ased. Thus, doubt is created ab iman Lal AW2. He appears to h nts of first claim petition to ost mortem of the deceased w f the deceased was admitted to h iner. Photo copy of the report ord as mark'A'. Though the rep same is admitted in evidence ame were not disputed by the eit also be found in the judgment da rdev Singh, the then learned Ad RX. Therefore, the court can t said report. The said report sho ch, portion of small intestine, la well as in the blood. Blood alco 75 mgs, per 100 mls. of blood n alcohol which had already go nt. Thus he was totally under when the impugned accident to is fact. On the face of it, simply f Kashmiri1 Lal PW6 the impugn ve been caused due to rash a pondent No.1. The fact that

h he lent bout ave get was ave t of port as ther ated ddl. take ows arge ohol d. It one ook y on ned

dec bef due acc 11-awa issu cla ANALYSIS OF

10.

A p rightly adjudica the negligent dr deceased-Pawan claimants failed respondent No.1

11.

A contradictions in and AW-6 Kash that the decease of Mudki due to However, Kash deceased was st fatal injuries. Th

ceased had taken alcohol which fore the accident, shows that at e influence of alcohol and the im e to his negligence. As such, it cident was caused due to rash an -E-1851 by respondent No.1, th ard of compensation can be pass ue is decided in favour of t imants. F THE RECORD perusal of the impugned award r ated the matter by holding that t riving of the respondent-driver b n Kumar himself, who was un d to discharge the burden of p 1-Satnam Singh, making their cla careful examination of the evi n the testimonies of the alleged hmiri Lal. Chiman Lal (AW-2) ed was crushed by the offending o the rash and negligent driving hmiri Lal (AW-6), in his affida tanding with his scooter when the he absence of any mention of th

h had already gone into the blo the time of accident he was un mpugned accident was taken pl cannot be held that the impugn nd negligent driving of bus No. P e effect of which would be that sed in favour of the claimants. T the respondents and against reveals that the learned Tribunal the accident was not caused due but rather due to the negligence nder the influence of alcohol. T proving negligence on the part aim unsustainable in law. idence on record reveals mate d eye-witnesses, AW-2 Chiman in his affidavit Ex. AW2/A, sta bus near a petrol pump in the a of respondent No.1-Satnam Sin avit Ex. AW6/A, deposed that e offending bus struck him, caus he scooter in Chiman Lal's (AW

ood nder lace ned PB-t no This has e to e of The t of erial Lal ated area ngh. sing W-2)

testimony raise material incons reliability of the

12.

Fur respondent No.1

3.8.2004, Ex. R to the negligenc principle of law courts in civil c criminal court h part of the resp claimants fail to The learned Tri case while indep

13.

Mo significant evid marked and no correctness of i empowered to challenged. The small intestine, with a blood al indicates that th Such a high lev

s serious doubts about the cre istencies in the sequence of ev e claimants' version and weaken rthermore, learned Additional Se 1 of the charge under Section 3 RX. It was categorically held the ce of the deceased-Pawan Kumar w that findings in a criminal tr cases must independently assess has examined the same set of fac pondent, such a finding cannot o bring forth cogent and reliable ibunal, therefore, rightly took n pendently evaluating the evidenc oreover, the Chemical Examin dentiary value in the present c ot formally exhibited, neither p its contents and its authenticity take judicial notice of such e e report clearly establishes the p large intestine, liver, spleen, k lcohol concentration of 166.75 he deceased was heavily intoxi vel of alcohol in the bloodstre

edibility of these witnesses. Su vents cast significant doubt on their case considerably. essions Judge, Ferozepur, acquit 304-A IPC vide the judgment da erein that the accident occurred d r, himself. While it is a settled le rial do not bind civil proceedin the evidence. However, where cts and found no culpability on t be ignored, especially when e evidence to establish negligen note of the findings in the crimi ce before it. ner's report, Mark 'A', assum case. Though the report was o party raised any objection to y remained undisputed. Courts evidence when its veracity is presence of alcohol in the stoma kidney, and blood of the deceas mg per 100 ml. This conclusiv icated at the time of the accide eam suggests impaired judgme

uch tted ated due egal ngs, nce. inal mes only are not ach, sed, vely ent. ent,

reduced reflexe occurred due t respondent-driv

14.

In v eyewitnesses, th report proving award rendered establish neglig award is upheld

15.

Con merits.

16.

Pen

February 28, 20 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

s, and loss of control, making i o the deceased's own neglige er. view of the glaring contradiction he findings of the criminal cou intoxication of the deceased, th d by the learned Tribunal. The c gence on the part of the respo . nsequently, the present appeal nding applications, if any, also st

(S

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

it highly probable that the accid ence rather than any fault of ns in the testimonies of the alle urt, and the unchallenged chemi his court finds no infirmity in claimants have miserably failed ondent-driver, and accordingly, is dismissed being devoid of tand disposed of. SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king

dent ged ical d to