Bimla and Others vs Jasmer Singh and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—The challenge in the present appeal is to the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby the claim application filed by the appellants u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred'' to as the Act), was dismissed on the ground that the appellants have not been able to prove that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck driver.

It is the case of the appellants that on 21.11.1997, deceased Piare Lal was going on his bicycle to attend the job in Samrat Forging at Ghalu Majra, Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala. He was going on the left side of the Chandigarh-Ambala road when a truck bearing registration No. HR-01-GA-0269, came from the backside and struck against his cycle. The cyclist fell down and sustained multiple injuries including head-injury and died thereafter. The driver of the truck did not stop the truck and fled away from the spot. An FIR was registered in this respect. It is claimed by the appellants that the accident was witnessed by one Jaswant Singh who was coming from Chandigarh in his car.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, alleged to be owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, put in appearance before the learned Tribunal on 13.8.1998 i.e. the first date after the notice was issued. Shri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, filed his memo of appearance. Subsequently, the power of attorney as well as written statement on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was filed admitting the accident.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the New India Insurance Company Limited-respondent No. 3, it was alleged that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. The Insurance Company was given permission to contest the claim petition on merits u/s 170 of the Act. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition vide order/award dated 4.3.2002. Against the said award, the claimants are in appeal.

A short question for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the claimants are able to prove that the accident had taken place with the offending truck No. HR-01-GA-0269. The claimants have produced two witnesses namely PW-1 Bimla Devi who has deposed in the cross examination that she has not seen the accident. Therefore, her statement is not that of an eye witness. The other witness is PW-2 Jaswant Singh. It is the pleaded case of the claimants that Jaswant Singh was going from Chandigarh to Ambala side on his car. While appearing as PW-2, Jaswant Singh has not deposed that he was on his car. He has not disclosed the particulars of the car. His statement is to the effect that he tried to follow the truck, but could not stop due to heavy rush, but he noted down the number of the truck. He has deposed that after 3 months of the accident, he visited his relative at Manimajra where the claimant was present. On his asking, the claimant told him the date of accident and he volunteered that he has seen that accident and can supply to the claimant the Car number which caused the accident. On the next day, he brought a chit bearing truck number from his house and gave it to Bimla claimant. In the cross examination, he has admitted that his relative is Achhar Singh who has told him to appear as a witness, though he has not been summoned. He has not made any report to the Police about the accident nor made any complainant to the Police Officer disclosing the truck number. He denied the suggestion that he has not witnessed the accident and has made a false statement.

The statement of the witness is wholly untrustworthy. For the period of 3 months, the witness has got a small chit bearing truck number in safe custody. It is unbelievable that for 3 months, a witness would retain a slip in respect of an accident in which none of his near relation was involved. Achhar Singh, alleged relation of Jaswant Singh, was the relevant witness who would corroborate the story propounded by the witness. He has not been examined. The statement of Jaswant Singh that he has tried to follow the truck again belies credibility. A person driving a car can very well follow a truck. Even if he could not follow the truck, he could inform the police officials in respect of the accident, but the witness has kept absolutely silent and then suddenly informed the claimant about the number of the offending truck.

It may be noticed that respondent Nos. 4 & 2 have put in appearance before the learned Tribunal on the first date of hearing when no summons are available on record regarding service of the said respondents. The respondents admitted the accident and then abstained from proceedings. However, when the process of the appeal was issued, the Process Server has reported that the owner of the house, address of which is given in the petition, has stated that no such person ever resided in the said house, Such report has come twice in respect of the process issued. Even the Surveyor RW-2 Lt. Co. G.S. Sandhu has deposed in his report Exhibit RX that after lot of efforts, the house was located. The owner of the house Sh. Ladha Ram stated that he is staying in this house since the year 1947 and he never had the tenants in his house. He has reported that in spite of best efforts to locate the truck owner, he could not find any person by the name of Jaswant Singh or Jasmer Singh. The said report of RW-2 stands corroborated by the report of the Process Server in the present appeal. It is, thus, apparent that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have filed a written statement admitting the accident in collusion with the claimants. It may be noticed that in District Ambala, there are large number of bogus claims filed by the claimants. Such cases were referred to for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation under the orders of this Court in separate proceedings. Such conduct of the proceedings shows lack of bonafide and collusiveness of the claimants with respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The testimony of PW-2 as eye witness is that of totally unreliable witness who has been produced by the claimant to procure an award by misusing the sympathy of the Court in a Motor Accident Claims case.

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the award announced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which may warrant interference of this Hon''ble Court in appeal.

The appeal stands dismissed.