Kaushalhya Devi and Others vs Kewal Singh and Another

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by the claimants against the award dated 06.01.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barnala (for short ''the Tribunal) whereby their claim petition brought u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been dismissed. The claimants sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the death of Ramavtar Giri in a road side accident that took place on 16.11.2007 and was returning to his village Handiaya on his bicycle with Pawan Kumar sitting on the carrier. At about 5.00 PM one Mohindra Jeep was seen coming from the side of village Handiaya. It was driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and had hit the bicycle of the deceased. The pillion rider was thrown away. HC Gurnam Singh saw the occurrence and despite the hue and cry, the jeep driver escaped. Ramavtar Giri having suffered serious injuries died on account of the same. Ramavtar Giri, 45 years old, was working as a labourer and was earning Rs. 8000/- per month.

The claim petition has been resisted by the respondents. They have not only denied the accident to have occurred with the vehicle in question and in the manner alleged by the claimants but have also denied the claim of the claimants to a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation by denying the income of the deceased at Rs. 8000/- per month.

Learned Tribunal has found no evidence to have been led by the claimants to prove that the accident has been an outcome of rash and negligent driving of Mohindra Jeep bearing registration No. PBD-1425 by respondent No. 1 Kewal Singh. For this reason, he decided issue No. 1 against the claimants. Consequently, the claim petition was held not maintainable and has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants has submitted that the case has already been registered with the police against respondent No. 1 for causing this accident by his rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. According to her, not only a case was registered but the police filed charge sheet against respondent No. 1 and, therefore, from this document, it is sufficient to infer that the accident is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of Mohindra Jeep No. PBD-1425.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that no evidence whatsoever was led by the appellants to prove the accident to have been a result of rash and negligent driving of jeep in question. According to them, the FIR was lodged by HC Gurnam Singh and the claimants have deliberately failed to examine him and, therefore, adverse inference was available against their case. It is further submitted that for these reasons, learned Tribunal was fully justified in holding that the accident is not proved to be on account of rash and negligent driving of jeep in question by respondent No. 1.

In order to substantiate their claim, appellant No. 1 appeared as PW-1 in the case. She has admitted in her cross-examination that she did not see the accident. It shows that she is not an eye witness of the occurrence.

The FIR was lodged by HC Gurnam Singh and he was the witness, who could prove the contents of the FIR by making a statement with regard to the same. Despite knowing the fact that HC Gurnam Singh is a witness of the occurrence, no effort was made to examine him. He was never summoned before the Tribunal and, therefore, no eye witness is examined in this case.

Although it is held by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Girdhari Lal Vs. Radhey Shyam and Others, that in a case where driver was being tried on account of rash and negligent driving, it is prima-facie safe to conclude that the accident occurred on account of the same, yet there should be some evidence led by the claimant to prove the accident to be on account of rash or negligent driving. In this case not only the claimants failed to lead any evidence but have also given reason to draw adverse inference against their case by not making any effort to examine HC Gurnam Singh. In these circumstances, only on the ground of presumption for the fact that respondent No. 1 is facing trial for this accident, it could not be held that the accident was an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the jeep in question. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to differ from the finding of learned Tribunal on issue No. 1. The appeal is, therefore, found to have no merit and is dismissed.