FAO No. 5274 of 2003 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
F. A. O. No. 5274 of 2003
Date of Decision: December 09, 2008
Dharam Pal and another ...........Appellants
Versus
Rajinder Singh and others ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.R.N.Lohan,Advocate for the
appellant.
Mr. Raj Kumar Bhishambu, Advocate for the
New India Assurance Company Ltd.
* * *
Sabina, J.
This is an appeal against the award dated 23.10.2003 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred to as `the
Tribunal’) whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants, seeking
compensation on account of death of Dhan Raj in the motor vehicle
accident, was dismissed.
The case of the claimants, in brief, is that on 08.07.2000, Dhan Raj
(since deceased) was travelling in Truck No. GJ-1-X/4795 driven by Rajbir
(respondent No.2), who was his uncle. They were going from Jaipur to
attend a function. Truck was loaded with steel pipes. At about 5.00 A.M.,
when they reached near the Rajasthan Motel on the National Highway No.
8, another truck was going ahead of truck driven by Rajbir (respondent
No.2) and the driver of the truck going ahead of truck driven by Rajbir
(respondent No.2) suddenly applied brakes, as a result of which respondent
FAO No. 5274 of 2003 2
No. 2 could not control and his truck struck against the truck going ahead of
it. As a result of this, the steel pipes pierced into the cabin of truck and hit
Dhan Raj and Sonu, who were travelling in the truck driven by respondent
No.2. Both Dhan Raj and Sonu died at the spot.
Notice of the claim petition was issued to the respondents.
Respondents filed their written statements. On the pleadings of the parties,
the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-
” 1. Whether Dhan Raj had died in a road side accident
allegedly caused on account of rash and negligent driving of truck
No. GH-IX/4795 by its driver? If so to what effect? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of
compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP
3. Whether respondent No.2 was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3
4. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR
5. Whether the present claim petition has been filed in
collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2 ? OPR
6. Relief.”
After the close of evidence of the parties, the learned Tribunal
dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, claimants have filed
the present appeal..
Claimants have examined respondent No.2- Rajbir driver of Truck
No. GJ-1-X/4795 as PW1. The said witness while appearing in the witness
box deposed that on 08.07.2000, he was driving truck loaded with pipes
from Delhi to Ahmedabad. When he reached near the Rajasthan Motel on
the National Highway No.8 , another truck was going ahead of it. After
FAO No. 5274 of 2003 3
over-taking his truck, the driver of the truck going ahead of his truck
suddenly applied brakes, as a result of which, his truck struck against rear
portion of the truck, going ahead of his truck. Pipes loaded in his truck
(driven by the witness) broke into the cabin of the truck (driven by
respondent No.2) and injured Dhan Raj and Sonu who were sitting in the
cabin. Both Dhan Raj and Sonu died at the spot. In his cross-examination,
he admitted that he was related to both the deceased. He had not noted
down the number of the truck going ahead of his truck. Thus, PW-1,
Rajbir (respondent No.2) has deposed that the accident had occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck which was going
ahead of his truck. Hence, the accident had not occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent No.2.
In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly decided issue
No.1 against claimants and consequently, rightly dismissed the claim
petition filed by the claimants. The impugned award calls for no
interference.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Sabina)
Judge
December 09, 2008
arya