IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) F.A.O. No. 140 of 1985 & Cross Objection No. 23-CII of 1985 M/S Ishpal Singh Paramjit Singh. ....... Appellant through Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate. Versus Kamlesh Kumari and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 to 6 through Nemo. Respondent no.7 through Shri Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Shri Ravinder Arora, Advocate. (2) F.A.O. No. 141 of 1985 & Cross Objection Nos. 42-CII of 1985 M/S Ishpal Singh Paramjit Singh. ....... Appellant through Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate. Versus Shimla Devi and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 to 5 through Nemo. Respondent no.6 through Shri S.S.Brar,Advocate. Respondent nos.7 & 8 through Nemo. Respondent no.9 through Shri Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Shri Ravinder Arora, Advocate. F.A.O.No.140 of 1985 -2- .... (3) F.A.O. No. 143 of 1985 M/S Ishpal Singh Paramjit Singh. ....... Appellant through Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate. Versus Mrs.Leela Ohri and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 to 4 through Shri Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Ms.Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate. Respondent no.5 through Shri S.S.Brar,Advocate. Respondent nos.6 & 7 through Nemo. Respondent no.8 through Shri Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Shri Ravinder Arora, Advocate. (4) F.A.O. No. 254 of 1985 Mrs.Leela Ohri and others. ....... Appellants through Shri Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Ms.Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate. Versus The Punjab State Electricity Board and others. ....... Respondent no.1 through Shri S.S.Brar,Advocate. Respondent nos.2 & 3 through Ms.Radhika Suri, Advocate. Respondent no.4 through Shri Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Shri Ravinder Arora, Advocate. Respondent no.5 through Nemo. F.A.O.No.140 of 1985 -3- .... Date of Decision: 24.10.2008 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned four appeals and cross objections, which although have been directed against different awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, `the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case Nos.16/25 of 1981/1993, 90 and 91 of 1983, yet, the same arise out of one motor vehicular accident which had taken place on 27.2.1981 causing death of three persons,namely, Jagmohan Lal, Tarsem Lal Singhla, Inderjit Ohri and injuries to one Manjeet Maunder. F.A.O. Nos.140, 141 and 143 of 1985 were filed collectively by the owner, driver and insurance company of the offending vehicle, which was a truck bearing registration No.HRU-591, whereas F.A.O.No.254 of 1985 was preferred by the claimants as they felt dis-satisfied with what was awarded to them by the Tribunal. On 22.4.1993, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of all these appeals and cross objections by three separate orders. The appeal and cross objections of the claimants were accepted, whereas the appeals of F.A.O.No.140 of 1985 -4- .... the owner, driver and insurance company were dismissed. The compensation awarded to the claimants was enhanced as under:- 1. F.A.O. No. 140 of 1985 & Cross Objection No.23-CII of 1985 In this case, the Tribunal had awarded a total a sum of Rs.84,000/- as compensation on account of death of Jagmohan Lal. A multiplier of `14' was applied. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum was allowed. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the appeal, accepted the cross objections filed by the claimants and directed the Tribunal to work out the compensation by applying a multiplier of `20'. Payment of interest at the rate of 15% per annum was also directed. (2) F.A.O. No. 141 of 1985 & Cross Objection No.42-CII of 1985 The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.2,03,099/- as compensation to the claimants for the death of Tarsem Lal Singla. Interest at the rate of 12% was granted. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross objections of the claimants while granting some relief to them. (3) F.A.O. No. 143 of 1985 & F.A.O. No.254 of 1985 Both these appeals were preferred against a common award, one by the owner, driver & insurance company and the other by the claimants. The Tribunal had awarded a total amount of Rs.1,43,917/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the death of Inderjit Ohri. F.A.O.No.140 of 1985 -5- .... The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal of the owner, driver and insurance company and allowed the appeal of the claimants and enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,24,320/- along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The owner, driver and insurance company of the offending vehicle were held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants by the Tribunal as well as by the learned Single Judge. The owner preferred Letters Patent Appeals against the orders of the learned Single Judge. Vide order dated 25.1.2006, the Division Bench set aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and remanded the matter for fresh decision. This is how the appeals as well as cross objections have come up before me for disposal. It is pertinent to mention here that initially F.A.O.Nos.140, 141 and 143 of 1985 were filed by the owner, driver and insurance company, but subsequently the driver and insurance company were transposed as respondents on a prayer made in that regard. At the out-set, learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the enhanced amount of compensation which was awarded by the learned Single Judge has already been paid to the claimants by the insurance company as it was also held jointly and severally liable to pay the same. Ms.Radhika Suri, learned counsel for the appellant-owner strenuously argued that that a perusal of the photographs and the other F.A.O.No.140 of 1985 -6- .... related evidence in the shape of testimony of the witnesses available on record leaves no room for doubt that it was a case where the deceased- Jagmohan Lal, who was the driver of the car in which the deceased-Tarsem Singla & Inderjit Ohri and injured-Manjeet Maunder were also travelling, was negligent in causing the accident. She referred to the photographs to say that the truck in question was found standing on the extreme left hand side of the road after the accident while going to Delhi from Ambala, whereas the car was coming from Delhi to Ambala at a fast speed and in a zig-zag manner, which invited the collision and, therefore, in this view of the matter and applying the principle of `res ipsa loquitur', the Tribunal ought to have recorded a finding that the deceased driver of the car was negligent in causing the accident and, thus, his legal heirs, as also the legal representatives of other deceased persons were not entitled to any compensation. On the other hand, Shri Girish Agnihotri, learned senior counsel for the claimants-Smt.Leela Ohri and others pointed out that the award passed by the Tribunal in the claim petition of legal representatives of deceased-Inderjit Ohri was distinct and separate from the awards passed in the cases of other claimants. He contended that no application was moved before the Tribunal seeking permission for the evidence recorded in the other claim petitions to be read into the case of Smt.Leela Ohri and others and in this view of the matter, the Court is precluded from going into the evidence recorded in the proceedings leading to the awards which are subject-matter of F.A.O.Nos.140 and 141 of 1985. This aspect, according F.A.O.No.140 of 1985 -7- .... to him, assumes significance for the reason that in the award which has been impugned by the claimants in F.A.O.No.254 of 1985 and by the owner in F.A.O.No.143 of 1985, the driver of the offending truck did not appear at all and, therefore, the best version of the accident has been withheld, even though his statement was recorded in the course of proceedings of other claim petitions leading to the awards which are challenged in F.A.O.Nos. 140 and 141 of 1985. It was contended by Shri Agnihotri that merely because the said awards pertain to the same accident would not make any difference. It was next contended by learned counsel for the claimants- Smt.Leela Ohri and others that the site plan which has been exhibited on record leaves no manner of doubt that the accident had occurred because of the negligence of the driver of the offending truck and not because of the negligence of the driver of the car. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. No doubt, Baldev Singh, driver of the offending truck appeared as RW4 in the claim petition preferred by Kamlesh Kumari and others, the legal representatives of deceased-Jagmohan Lal and has denied that he was negligent in causing the accident. However, his statement is obviously self-serving one. He has stated that he was driving the truck at a speed of 30-35 kilometers per hour, whereas the car, which was coming from opposite side, was moving at a speed of 60 kilometers per hour. He further testified that the car had come on the extreme left side in the path of F.A.O.No.140 of 1985 -8- .... his truck and struck against it. The claimants-Kamlesh Kumari and others, on the other hand, had produced a retired Head Constable of Police, namely, Kanwar Singh, as PW2. He stated that he had seen the accident and that the driver of the truck was guilty of having caused the accident by driving the vehicle negligently. He also testified that there were marks of dragging on the road and the car had been dragged to some distance as a result of the impact of the collision. The photographs, Exhibits R2 to R6, produced in the case of Kamlesh Kumari and others, also reveal that there are marks of dragging of a vehicle on the record. There is also evidence of other alleged eye witness, namely, RW3-Fateh Singh in that case which support the version of the driver of the offending truck. In this manner, the testimony of the alleged eye witnesses only serves the interest of the parties, who have chosen to produce them. Therefore, it is not safe to rely exclusively on the statements of either of the eye witnesses, namely, PW2-Kanwar Singh and RW3-Fateh Singh, to record a finding with regard to the manner of accident. The police had also investigated the matter independently. They had come to the spot soon after the accident. A site plan is on record as Exhibit R1 in the case of Kamlesh Kumari and others. This piece of evidence unveil the whole story. Point `A' which has been indicated in this site plan is the place where the truck is said to have hit the car and point `B' F.A.O.No.140 of 1985 -9- .... is the place where the truck was stationed after the accident, while point `C' in front of point `B' is the place where the car is positioned after the impact. Point `A' where the truck is said to have impacted the car is almost in the middle of the road and this belies the testimony of the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Baldev Singh, wherein he has stated that he was almost on the kucha road where the car had hit his truck. It is evident that the truck is almost in the middle of the road and after the impact, it dragged the car to a considerable distance towards the side where it was headed. The Court often has to enter into the realm of possibilities to arrive at an inference which can be near truth. When two vehicles being driven at a speed impact each other, then in that eventuality, the vehicle which is at a greater speed is likely to push the other vehicle towards the direction in which such vehicle is headed, provided both the vehicles are almost of identical weight. But, if one of them is lighter than the heavier vehicle, then it is likely to push the lighter vehicle towards its own path. As mentioned above, the truck driver, while appearing as RW4 in the case of Kamlesh Kumari and others, has stated that his truck was moving at a speed of 30-35 kilometers, whereas the car was moving at a speed of 60 kilometers per hour. Had this been the case, then the truck would have stopped dead in its tracks at or around the place where the impact had taken place without deviating from its path, whereas the car would have been thrown slightly backwards, but the photographs, Exhibits R2 to R6 show that the car was pushed backward to a considerable distance from the place where the accident had occurred towards the extreme left hand side of the F.A.O.No.140 of 1985 -10- .... truck and the road. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the site plan suggests the manner in which the accident had taken place and the finding recorded by the Tribunal in all the cases that the driver of the offending truck was negligent in causing the accident deserves to be upheld. Ordered accordingly. No other point has been urged. At the cost of repetition, it is mentioned that the learned Single Judge, by separate judgments dated 22.4.1993, had enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants and the payment thereof of the same has already been made to them by the insurance company of the offending truck. As a result, the appeals of the owner are dismissed, whereas the cross objections and the appeal of the claimants are allowed to the extent referred to in the judgments dated 22.4.1993 of the learned Single Judge. October 24,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge