IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1084 and 1130 of 1987
(O&M)
Date of decision: 27.8.2009
(FAO No.1084 of 1987)
Balbir Singh and another ......Appellant(s)
Versus
Manjit Kaur and others ......Respondent(s)
(FAO No.1130 of 1987)
Nachittar Singh and others ……Appellant(s)
Versus
Mukhtiar Kaur and others ……Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Pankaj Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr. Nirmal Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
This judgment of mine shall dispose of FAO Nos.1084 of 1987
and FAO No.1130 of 1987 which have arisen out of one common award
dated 14.8.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala.
Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these
appeals are that on 8.10.1985 one Thakur Singh son of Balbir Singh
resident of Duladdi and Gurbinder Singh of the same village were going on
foot from Nabha to village Duladdi. Sarwan Singh son of Sunder Singh
was following them. They were going on the left side of the road at about 9
P.M. When they reached near Durga Rice Factory, Nachittar Singh alias
Mithu (respondent No.1 before the Tribunal) came from behind on motor
cycle No.PBY-1172 belonging to Vasdev Gargas son of Chhaju Ram
(respondent No.2 before the Tribunal). The aforesaid Nachittar Singh was
driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently which hit against Thakur
Singh as a result of which he received multiple injuries. Nachittar Singh
went away on the motor cycle after the accident. Thakur Singh was taken
in a tractor trolley in an injured condition to Civil Hospital, Nabha.
Thereafter, he was referred to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala. After two days of
his admission in Rajendra Hospital, Patiala , Thakur Singh succumbed to
his injuries. Balbir Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur (appellants in FAO No.1084
of 1987) are the parents of aforesaid Thakur Singh deceased. Manjit Kaur-
respondent No.1 and Monia-respondent No.2 in the aforesaid appeal are
the widow and daughter of Thakur Singh respectively. All of them were
dependent upon Thakur Singh during his lifetime. Thakur Singh was aged
about 22 years at the time of death. The motorcycle involved in the
accident was insured with the National Insurance Company. Hence, the
claim petition for the grant of compensation on account of death of Thakur
Singh in the motor vehicular accident caused by rash and negligent driving
of Nachittar Singh.
Nachittar Singh and Vasdev Gargas, driver and owner of the
offending vehicle contested the claim application by filing joint written
statement stating therein that no accident was caused by the offending
vehicle, further submitting that the respondent-Nachittar Singh was not
driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently and therefore, the claimants
were not entitled to any compensation.
The National Insurance Company-respondent No.3 before the
Tribunal also contested the claim application denying its liability to pay any
compensation. It was submitted by the Insurance Company that no
accident had taken place with the motorcycle. It was also pleaded that if
any liability is found, it is limited to the extent as provided in the Motor
Vehicles Act and the Insurance Policy. It was pleaded on behalf of the
aforesaid respondents that the claim petition be dismissed with costs.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed:
“1. Whether Thakur Singh deceased was killed in
automobile accident involving motor cycle No.PBV-1172
belonging to respondent Vasdev Gargas on 8.10.1985
on Nabha-Malerkotla Road in the area of village Duladdi
on account of rash and negligent driving by said Motor
cycle by respondent Nachattar Singh? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are dependent of Thakur
Singh deceased? OPP.
3. To what amount of compensation, if any, and from
which of the respondents are the petitioners
entitled?OPP.
4. Relief.”
On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that Thakur
Singh died in motor vehicular accident involving motor cycle No.PBV-1172
belonging to respondent-Vasdev Gargas on 8.10.1985 on account of rash
and negligent driving by respondent-Nachittar Singh. Under issue No.2,
the Tribunal held that the appellants in FAO No.1084 of 1987 i.e. Balbir
Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur, parents of the deceased, were not entitled to any
compensation as they were not dependent upon Thakur Singh deceased.
Under Issue No.3, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,15,200/- as
compensation to Manjit Kaur and Monia i.e wife and daughter of
deceased (respondents No.1 and 2 in FAO No.1084 of 1987) on account of
Thakur Singh’s death in the motor vehicular accident. The liability to pay
compensation was held to be of driver, owner and insurer jointly and
severally.
FAO No.1084 of 1987 has been filed by Balbir Singh and
Mukhtiar Kaur challenging the impugned award on the ground that findings
of the Tribunal that they were not dependent upon Thakur Singh deceased
are erroneous and further that the inadequate compensation has been
granted whereas FAO No.1130 of 1987 has been filed jointly by the driver,
owner and insurer of the offending vehicle challenging the grant of
compensation to respondents i.e Manjit Kaur and Monia wife and daughter
of deceased Thakur Singh.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case.
Balbir Singh while appearing as AW-1 in support of his case
has stated that wife and daughter of Thakur Singh were dependent upon
him during his lifetime and he has no where stated that he himself and his
wife Mukhtiar Kaur were also dependent upon Thakur Singh deceased. It
also came on record that Balbir Singh was owner of 80 Bighas of land.
On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the
Balbir Singh and Mukhtiar Kaur cannot be held to be dependent upon
Thakur Singh deceased and they were not entitled to any compensation.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the aforesaid appellants in FAO
No.1084 of 1987 was unable to point out any material evidence on record
on the basis of which findings of the Tribunal on issue No.2 could be
challenged. In fact, there is no other evidence on the basis of which the
appellants can be held to be dependent upon Thakur Singh deceased.
Since the appellants were not dependent upon Thakur Singh deceased,
therefore, in the absence of any appeal on behalf of the other claimants,
the inadequacy of the compensation cannot be raised in this appeal. Thus,
I find no merit in FAO No.1084 of 1987.
Now taking up FAO No.1130 of 1987, it may be seen that the
Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact under issue No.1 after appreciating
the evidence on record that the motor cycle No.PBV-1172 belonging to
appellant No.2 was involved in the accident which was being driven by
appellant No.1 rashly and negligently and due to which Thakur Singh
suffered multiple injuries and later on died. A perusal of the findings on
this issue would show that Gurbinder Singh AW-5, who is an eye witness of
the occurrence, has fully supported the case of the claimants. There is
nothing on record to discard the testimony of the aforesaid witness in any
manner. Thus, no interference is required in the findings recorded by the
Tribunal on issue No.1. The findings on other issues were not challenged
by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal.
It is relevant to point out here that admittedly the offending
vehicle was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and in fact
except the ground that the aforesaid motorcycle was not involved in the
accident, no other worthwhile objection had been taken by the appellant-
Insurance Company in their defence. Moreover, no such ground which is
available in accordance with law to the appellant-Insurance Company to
challenge the award has been raised.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, I find no merit in this
appeal also.
For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals fail and they
are ordered to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
August 28, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE