IN TH 214 Manjit Ka Jastar Ali CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GU against the Claims Tri Tribunal’) 09.10.2006 (hereinafter was filed b old son; 24 Gurjant Sin suffered by 15.8.2006, no. PB-23 FAO-4707-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR FAO No.4707-20 Date of decision jit Kaur and others Versus r Ali and others AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI Mr. Vipul, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents. HI GUPTA J. (Oral) The present appeal has bee st the order dated 13.9.2011 passe s Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (herei nal’) whereby the claim petition be 0.2006, filed under Section 166 of inafter referred to as ‘the Act’), has be Brief facts of the case are tha filed by the four claimants being the on; 24 year old son; and 70 year o ant Singh, with the allegations that he red by him in a motor vehicle acc .2006, due to the rash and negligent dr 23-D-7474 (hereinafter referred to 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 2012 (O & M) cision :-16.01.2025 …..Appellants …..Respondents E NIDHI GUPTA vocate as been filed by the claimants passed by the Motor Accident (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ion bearing MACT No.85 dated 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been dismissed. re that the present claim petition the 49-year-old widow; 28 year year old mother of the deceased hat he had died due to the injuries cle accident that took place on gent driving of Mahindra Scorpio red to as ‘the offending vehicle’), VIJAY ASIJA 2025.01.18 12.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which was no.2, and 13.9.2011, claimants h establish th negligent d Jastar Ali. doubted by claim. The from the fa criminal tri appellants Kumar, wh vehicle to appellants pendency o claim petiti support of relied upon others vs. 2003. Company appellants a a view to FAO-4707-2012 h was being driven by respondent n , and insured by respondent no.3.Vide .2011, the learned Tribunal has dismiss Learned counsel for the ap ants had led sufficient evidence befo lish that the accident in question had gent driving of the offending vehicle r Ali. It is submitted that though th ted by the respondents, however, the The correctness of the claim of the the fact that the driver of the offendi inal trial for the accident in question. llants had relied upon the statement ar, who had disclosed the registration cle to the police. However, he could llants before the learned Tribunal a ency of the claim petition. It is acco petition has been wrongly dismissed ort of his contentions, learned coun d upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supr vs. ICICI Lombard General Insu Learned counsel for re pany vehemently opposes the praye llants and submits that the claim petiti w to collect compensation from the 2 dent no.1, owned by respondent Vide the impugned order dated ismissed the said claim petition. the appellants submits that the e before the learned Tribunal to n had taken place due to rash and vehicle by the respondent No.1- ugh the factum of accident was r, the appellants had proved their of the appellants is also made out ffending vehicle was also facing estion. In proving their case, the ment of the eye-witness Naresh stration number of the offending could not be produced by the unal as he had died during the is accordingly submitted that the issed by the learned Tribunal. In counsel for the appellants has e Supreme Court in Janabai and Insurance Co. Ltd. 2022 ACJ r respondent No.3-Insurance prayer made on behalf of the petition has been filed only with m the Insurance Company. It is VIJAY ASIJA 2025.01.18 12.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document submitted proceedin submitting 337, 427 IP question on Singh s/o the accide Tejinder S registration name of the to how the offending v criminal tri the falsity o the fact tha to the hos hospital rec the decease Singh at Accordingl the case file petition wa deceased G FAO-4707-2012 itted that no reliance can be p eedings. Learned counsel substant itting that the FIR No.142 dated 16.8 427 IPC and 304-A IPC, was registere on the basis of statement of Claim s/o deceased Gurjant Singh, who is accident. It is contented that howev der Singh at the spot is doubtful as tration number of the offending vehic of the driver has not been given. Eve ow the claimants subsequently disco ding vehicle and the name of the driv inal trial, respondent No.1 has been ac alsity of the case forth by the claiman act that it has been averred by them e hospital by said eyewitness Tejin records bear the name of some oth eceased to the hospital. As such, the at the spot has been doubted rdingly, dismissal of the appeal has be No other argument is raised on I have heard learned counsel ase file in great details. The brief facts of the case ion was filed by the four claimants ased Gurjant Singh had died due to the 3 be placed upon the criminal bstantiates his contention by d 16.8.2006, under Sections 279, gistered regarding the accident in Claimant no.2 namely Tejinder ho is stated to be eye witness to however, the very presence of ful as he has not mentioned the vehicle in the FIR and even the Even it is nowhere disclosed as discovered the number of the he driver. Even otherwise, in the en acquitted. It is submitted that laimants is further made out from that the deceased was taken Tejinder Singh. However, the me other person who had brought the very presence of Tejinder bted by the learned Tribunal. has been prayed for. ised on behalf of the parties. unsel for the parties and perused case are that the present claim mants claiming thereby that the to the injuries suffered by him in VIJAY ASIJA 2025.01.18 12.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document a motor ve rash and n No.1-Jastar No.2-Anan Insurance C were the 49 70 years ol appellants b FAO-4707-2012 tor vehicular accident that took plac and negligent driving of the offend Jastar Ali. The said offending vehicle Anand Kumar and insured by rance Company Ltd. The claimants b the 49 years old widow; 28 years old ears old mother of the deceased Gurj llants before the learned Tribunal was “…It is prayed that on son of Gurjant Singh Sewa Singh had come their domestic work on and after finishing thei to their village Mando scooter No. PB-23-C-68 was on his scooter No. of Gurjant Singh was 1 of Tejinder Singh. At a reached a little ahead Sirhind, a Scorpio V came from Sirhind side in a rash and negli respondent no. 1 and st Gurjant Singh. As a re Singh fell down on unconscious. The driver PB-23-D-4747 fled aw causing the accident. T Singh, after arranging Hospital Fatehgarh S passersby. Gurjant Sin Chandigarh where he 4 k place on 15.8.2006 due to the offending vehicle by respondent vehicle was owned by respondent by respondent No.3-Oriental ants before the learned Tribunal ars old son; 24 years old son; and d Gurjant Singh. The case of the l was as follows: - t on 15.8.2006 Tejinder Singh, gh and Gurjant Singh son of ome to G.T. Road Sirhind for rk on their respective scooters their work they were returning andour. Gurjant Singh was on 6856 whereas Tejinder Singh No. PB-23-C-6056. The scooter as 100 yards ahead of scooter At about 6.30 PM, when they ead of Bara chowk, G.T. road o Vehicle No. PB-23-D-4747 side without blowing any horn negligent manner, driven by nd struck against the scooter of a result of the impact Gurjant on the road and become river of the Scorpio vehicle No. d away from the spot after nt. Tejinder Singh took Gurjant ging for a vehicle, to Civil rh Sahib with the help of t Singh was referred to PGI e he remained admitted till VIJAY ASIJA 2025.01.18 12.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Insurance following i FAO-4707-2012 19.8.2006 and at 9 P Singh succumbed to h dated 16.8.2006 under had been registered ag which offence under Se added. It is further pra aged about 50 years, w committee, Sirhind and per month as salary. 15,000/- per month claimants were depen Claimant No. 3 is ha dependent upon Gurjan On these averments co has been sought by the c The said claim was resist rance Company. On the basis of ple wing issues were framed by the ld. Tri “1. Whether Gurjant which had taken about 6.30 PM in Sirhind on accou driving by resp Mahindra Scorp OPP. 2. Whether the cl received the co representatives of so, how much and 3. Whether driver Scorpio was not driving licence OPR-3 5 9 PM on 19.8.2006. Gurjant to his injuries. FIR No. 142 nder Section 279/337,427 IPC d against respondent No. 1 to er Section 304-A IPC was also prayed that deceased who was rs, was employed with Market and was drawing Rs.20,221- ry. He was also earning Rs. nth from agriculture. The ependent upon the deceased. s handicapped and was fully rjant Singh for his daily needs. ts compensation of Rs.50 lacs the claimants…” resisted by respondent No.3- of pleadings of the parties, the ld. Tribunal: - jant Singh died in an accident taken place on 15.8.2006, at M in the area of Barra Chowk, ccount of rash and negligent respondent No. 1 of vehicle corpio No. PB-23-D-7474? claimants are entitled to compensation being legal es of deceased Gurjant Singh, if and from whom? OPA. ver of above referred vehicle not holding valid and effective ce at the time of accident? VIJAY ASIJA 2025.01.18 12.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document led by the petition. of the appe as follows: FAO-4707-2012 4. Whether the clai joinder of necessa 5. Relief” On the basis of the evidence by the parties, the learned Tribunal ion. The primary grounds for dism e appellants are encapsulated in para llows: - “xxx xxx xxx 27. Similarly, the Tribu accept the testimony without finding much f involvement of the offen made out from the fact case. In the Instant ca factors have come toget of claimants about th vehicle No. PB-23-D-47 about the respondent N said vehicle. A brief circumstances may be m a) as per Tejinder S coming behind when Gurjant S vehicle No. PB- the road unconsc the help of pass Civil Hospital a Fatehgarh Sahib PGI Chandigarh extract of hospita 6 claim petition is bad for non essary parties?OPR-3 dence both oral and documentary ibunal has dismissed the claim r dismissal of the claim petition para 27 of the impugned Award ribunals more often, than not, ny of the alleged eyewitness ch fault with the same, if the offending vehicle is prima facie facts and circumstances of the nt case however, a number of together as to falsify the version t the involvement of Scorpio 4747 in the instant case and nt No. 1 being the driver of the rief enumeration of the said be made as follows:- er Singh, eye witness, he was nd his father Gurjant Singh nt Singh was hit by Scorpio 23-D-4747 and fell down on onscious. Tejinder Singh with passersby took the injured to al and from Civil Hospital ahib, injured was referred to igarh. However, perusal of spital register Ex. R-2 reveals VIJAY ASIJA 2025.01.18 12.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4707-2012 that Gurjant Si Hospital by Har Police Ambulanc Chowk. b) As per the medica by Shri Balkar S the court of JMI again Jatinderpa who is recorded t to PGI. It is un- of the son of vict either in the Civil or in the reco Chandigarh, had present these. c) Another relevant Tejinder Singh h Taxi prior to th claimant No. 1 h Singh was operat to oblige people b of urgency of oth has admitted in he had recorded given to the In identify Scorpio immediately after to their stand (Ad his memory. In subsequent stand being able to Iden PB-23-D- 4747 accident, his fail the said vehicle 7 t Singh was taken to Civil Harvinder Singh employee of lance stationed at Madhopur edical record of PGI Produced ar Singh, Criminal Ahlmad of JMIC, Fatehgarh Sahib,it was erpal Singla friend of patient ded to have brought the patient -believable that the presence victim would not be recorded Civil Hospital Fatehgarh Sahib record Ex. RW2/A of PGI, had the son been actually ant circumstance is that though gh has denied having plied a to the accident, Manjit Kaur . 1 has admitted that Tejinder erating a private car and used ple by giving other cars in case f other people. Tejinder Singh in his cross examination that rded in his statement Ex. R-1, Investigator, that he could pio vehicle No. PB-23-D-4747 after the accident as it belonged Adda) and this number was in In the backdrop of this tand of Tejinder Singh about Identify the Scorpio vehicle No. 747 immediately after the failure to give the number of icle or its description or the VIJAY ASIJA 2025.01.18 12.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document was allege Yet, he is Admittedly who brough witness to vehicle as i to the respo the time of number of offending v doubt on t already not the crimin FAO-4707-2012 name of the drive Scorpio vehicle caused the acc stand/Adda, wou Scorpio vehicle never involved in Kaur, her childre to respondents N village at a dis village of Gurjan facts it is unbelie would not have g the vehicle or t registration of FIR xxx xxx xxx” From the above findings, it em allegedly coming behind the decease he is not the one who took the ittedly, the hospital records bear the brought the deceased to the hospital. F ess to the accident, who was also cle as it belonged to his Adda/Taxi sta respondents no.1 and 2 who reside i ime of registration of FIR Tejinder Sin ber of the vehicle or identify responde ding vehicle. Needless to say, all thes t on the story put forth by the claim dy noticed above, admittedly, respond criminal trial. Ld. counsel for the 8 driver or even the fact that the cle No. PB-23-D-4747 which accident belonged to their would show that the said icle No. PB-23-D-4747 was d in the accident. As per Manjit ildren and husband were known ts No. 1 and 2 who reside in a distance of 4 KM from the urjant Singh. In view of these believable that Tejinder Singh ve given some identification of or the driver at the time of f FIR. (Emphasis added) s, it emerges that Tejinder Singh eceased at the time of accident. the deceased to the hospital. the names of some other persons pital. Further, Tejinder Singh was also familiar with the offending stand; and he was also known eside in the same village. Yet, at der Singh is unable to provide the spondent no.1 as the driver of the all these factors cast a shadow of e claimants. Even otherwise, as spondent No.1 stand acquitted in or the appellants is unable to VIJAY ASIJA 2025.01.18 12.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document controvert On repeate informs th vehicle and Singh on th eye-witness his statem proceeding provide th therefore u the said s accepted, t was not me learned Tri present app January 1 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo FAO-4707-2012 rovert or deny the above said finding epeated queries by this Court, learned ms this Court that the registration cle and the name of respondent No h on the basis of information given to itness Naresh Kumar, who had disclo statement made under Section 161 eedings. However, learned counsel for ide the copy of the said statement fore unable to substantiate the said c said submission of the learned cou pted, there is still no explanation giv not mentioned by Tejinder Singh durin ed Tribunal. Therefore, keeping in view t nt appeal is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, 16, 2025 r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No 9 indings of the learned Tribunal. earned counsel for the appellants ration number of the offending nt No.1 was found by Tejinder ven to them by the now deceased disclosed the said information in n 161 Cr.P.C. in the criminal sel for the appellants is unable to ment of Naresh Kumar and is said claim. In any event, even if d counsel for the appellants is on given as to why the said fact h during his testimony before the view the above noted facts, the if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.01.18 12.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document