F.A.O No.6534 of 2010 1 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND HARYANA F.A.O No.6534 of 2010 Date of decision 17.01.2011 Sanjay Kumar and another ......Appellants Versus Atma Ram ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.G.S. Virk, Advocate for the appellants. JITENDRA CHAUHAN,J. CM No.28431-CII-2010 Application is allowed to 206 days delay in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application. FAO No.6534 of 2010 Sanjay Kumar, Driver and Raghubir Singh, Owner of Tractor Mahindra bearing registration No.HR21-AJ-9461 have preferred this appeal against the award dated 21.10.2009 passed by Motors Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad. In brief the facts are that, on 29.04.2008 at about 8.00 p.m., Claimant Atma Ram along with his nephew Pritam Singh son of Ram Narain, resident of M.P. Rohi was returning from Jhalnia towards their Dhani situated in village M.P. Rohi on motor cycle Hero Honda bearing registration No.HR-22D/9543 which was being driven by Pritam Singh at a moderate speed with caution. When they reached near the fields of Neki Ram son of Gobind Ram, resident of village Mohammadpur Rohi, a tractor, Mahindra 265 DI, bearing registration No. HR-21A-9461, driven by Sanjay Kumar son of Raghbir Singh,resident of village Jhalnia District Fatehabad F.A.O No.6534 of 2010 2 rashly and negligently came from the opposite direction as a result of there the said tractor-trolley dashed against the motor cycle by coming on the extreme wrong side of the road. Pritam Singh fell down on the Kacha portion of the road while the claimant fell down on the mettled portion of the road resulting into injuries upon the various parts of their persons. The driver of the said tractor ran away from the spot with the tractor. It is stated that registration number plate of the tractor was having scratches and dust rendering it not readable at the time of the accident and during investigation its registration number was found as HR-21 A/9461. The claimant was taken to sapra Hospital, Hisar where he was treated as indoor patient. The police from Police Station Sadar Fatehabad came to Sapra Hospital on 01.05.2008 and recorded the statement of Pritam Singh as the claimant was not able to make statement on which case bearing FIR No.144 dated 01.05.2008 under Sections 279/337/338 of the IPC was registered against respondent No.1. It is alleged that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1, driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the tractor bearing registration No.HR- 21A/9461. It is stated that respondent No.1 being the driver and respondent No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle/tractor are liable to make the compensation to the petitioner on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement have denied the accident having been caused by respondent No.1 Sanjay Kumar due to rash and negligent driving of tractor Mahindra 265 DI bearing registration No.HR-21A/9461. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident in question has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration F.A.O No.6534 of 2010 3 No.HR-21A9461 by respondent No.1?OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present petition? OPD. 4. Relief. The learned Motors Accident Claim Tribunal decided issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner holding that the driver was rash and negligent and caused the accident. Issue No.2 was decided in favour of the claimant granting him a total of compensation of Rs.1,15,772/-. It was further held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 the driver and the owner are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation. Issue No.3 was decided against the respondents. Sanjay Kumar, Driver and Raghubir Singh, Owner has preferred this appeal against the award. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The claimant has proved that an FIR No.541 dated 25.10.2005 in Police Station City Fatehabad stands registered against Sanjay Kumar, Driver and a challan was presented in the Court. A charge Ex.P-38 has been framed against the driver under Sections 289/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code. The proceedings under Motors Vehicle Act are of summary nature. The framing of the charge by the learned Judicial Magistrate is prima facie evidence of his being rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. Moreover, the reasoning adopted by the Motors Accident Claim Tribunal on issue No.1 is based on evidence on record. The claimant has also proved that he remained admitted as indoor patient and on this account a sum of Rs.25000/- granted to the claimant is most reasonable amount. The amount awarded on other heads like earning, loss of income and special diet and transportation charges is also reasonable amount. That the F.A.O No.6534 of 2010 4 learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any error in the award of the Tribunal. The interest on the awarded amount is also adequate. The learned counsel has failed to point out any legal infirmity in the award. There is no scope to interfere in the well-reasoned award of the learned Tribunal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed in limine. January 17, 2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Jyoti 1 JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No