FAO No.2711 of 2009(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.2711 of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision: 9.11.2009
Bhagat Ram ......Appellant
Versus
Smt.Santosh Devi and others ......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Shailender Kashyap, Advocate for the appellant.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
This is owner’s appeal challenging the impugned award
whereby the claimant-respondents have been awarded a sum of
Rs.5,98,900/- as compensation on account of death of Ram Kumar in a
motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle by the appellant.
The brief facts of the case are that on 21.8.2007 one ASI Ram
Kumar (deceased) and ASI Suresh Kumar were going on motorcycle to
police post Jamaal where aforesaid Ram Kumar was posted. ASI Ram
Kumar was ahead of Suresh Kumar and when they reached near village
Rangri Khera on a link road from the opposite direction, the offending
vehicle came which was being driven by the appellant in a rash and
negligent manner. The said vehicle struck against the motorcycle of Ram
Kumar, ASI, as a result of which Ram Kumar received serious/grievous
injuries whereas the respondent-appellant along with the offending vehicle
managed to flee away from the scene. Ram Kumar was brought to Civil
Hospital, Sirsa, but from there, he was referred to PGI, Rohtak. However,
when he was being taken to PGI, Rohtak, his condition became precarious
FAO No.2711 of 2009(O&M) 2
and therefore, he was admitted in Metro Hospital, Hisar. FIR No.240 dated
22.8.2007 under Sections 279/304IPC was also registered in Police Station
Sadar, Sirsa. The appellant was arrested in a criminal case and is facing
trial. Ram Kumar succumbed to his injuries on 24.8.2007. Hence this
claim petition.
Upon notice, the appellant filed written statement raising
various preliminary objections. On merits, it was stated that no such
accident had taken place with the offending vehicle by the appellant as
alleged and the appellant was implicated falsely in the criminal case as the
police official had died. Dismissal of the claim petition was sought. On the
basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
“I. Whether the accident which took place due to
rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing
No.DL9C/0691 by respondent No.1 as alleged in the
petition? OPP
II If issue No.1 is proved whether one Ram Kumar
sustained injuries in the accident in question and
succumbed to the injuries as alleged in the petition?
OPP
III If issue Nos.1 & 2 proved whether the petitioners
and respondent No.3 are entitled for any compensation
on account of termination of life of Ram Kumar, if so to
what amount and from whom? OPP
IV Whether the petition is not maintainable against
respondent as alleged? OPR
V Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to
file the petition? OPR
VI Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and
FAO No.2711 of 2009(O&M) 3mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPR
VII Whether the petition is filed in order to harass the
respondents and the respondents are entitled to special
costs? OPR
VIII Relief.”
On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that the
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle of the appellant and Ram Kumar sustained injuries in the accident
in question and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal held that the
claimants were entitled to the compensation to be paid by the appellant.
Issues No.4 to 7 were also decided against the appellant and the award
was passed granting compensation of Rs.5,98,900/- along with interest at
the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its
realization in favour of claimant-respondents.
Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the
Tribunal has erred at law while not appreciating the fact that there was a
delay in the registration of the FIR and it was highly impossible that in an
accident case where a police official met with an accident and ultimately
lost his life, it took so much of delay for the police to register an FIR after
one day and thus, it is established on record that the delay was deliberately
made so as to manipulate a false case upon the appellant. It has been
further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that from the
evidence on record, it is not proved that the appellant caused the accident
in question and therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
impugned award.
The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence on record has
returned a finding of fact that the accident in question had taken place due
FAO No.2711 of 2009(O&M) 4
to rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant and the offending
vehicle was involved in the accident and there was nothing on the file to
show that the claim petition was filed with a mala fide intention to falsely
implicate the appellant. Simply because FIR was got recorded next day of
the occurrence, in the absence of any cogent evidence, it cannot be said
that since there was a delay, therefore, a false case was fastened upon
the appellant.
Moreover, the claimants have placed on record testimony of
PW-5-Sh. Suresh Kumar, who has supported the case of the claimants.
There is nothing on record to contradict the testimony of the aforesaid
witness who was an eyewitness. Despite the fact that the appellant has
specifically pleaded in the written statement that a false case has been
fastened upon him, he has failed to produce any evidence in support of this
contention. Neither any such evidence which is in support of the appellant
and which has been ignored, has been pointed out.
No other point was urged.
Thus, I find no merit in this appeal.
Dismissed.
November 9, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE