FAO No. 1323 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1323 of 2008 Date of decision: 08.03.2010 Shamshuddin and another ....Appellants Versus Smt. Baskar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Advocate, for the respondents. VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) This appeal, by the owner and driver, is directed against the award dated 15.9.2007, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, vide which the application moved by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was allowed. The claimant/respondents filed a claim petition, by pleading therein that on 16.8.2004 deceased Rajjak went to Bhiwadi along with one Subedeen S/o Rattiulla R/o village Chundhika, Tehsil Taoru District Gurgaon for labour work. Appellant No.2 was the driver of the offending tractor, who had hired their services for labour work for loading and unloading earth. The deceased along with Subedeen then went to Mudana village for taking earth in the tractor trolley, where they filled the earth in trolley. When appellant No.2 was backing the offending tractor and trolley negligently, the deceased, who was between the tractor and trolley and was removing the earth under the rear tyre of FAO No. 1323 of 2008 -2- the tractor came under the tyre and his head and body was crushed under the tyre of the tractor and he died at the spot. It was, thus, claimed that the driver of the tractor had driven the tractor rashly and negligently for the reason that in spite of knowing that the deceased was standing between the tractor and trolley, he moved the tractor in such a manner, which resulted in accident. Mr. Noor Mohammad was said to have witnessed the accident, who lodged FIR. The appellants contested the claim petition, wherein plea was taken that appellant No.1 was the owner of the vehicle in question, which was insured with respondent No.3 in the claim petition, whereas appellant No.2 was the driver at the time of alleged occurrence. Factum of accident was denied and it was pleaded that FIR lodged was false and frivolous. Other allegations on merit were also denied. Respondents No.3 to 5 being proforma respondents admitted the claim and stated that they had no objection, if the claimed amount of compensation is awarded in favour of the claimants. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: - “1. Whether the accident in question resulting into death of Rajjak was caused because of rash and negligent driving of tractor No. RNB-646 by it driver respondent No.1? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Relief.” On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent FAO No. 1323 of 2008 -3- driving of tractor No. RNB-646 by appellant No.2, which resulted in death of Rajjak. The claimants were granted compensation of Rs.2,11,200/- (Rupees two lac eleven thousand and two hundred only), which was directed to be recovered from all the respondents jointly and severally. The claimants were also held entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the award primarily on the ground, that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is outcome of misreading of evidence, as, no accident had occurred with the tractor. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, is that the claimants have failed to examine Subedeen, who was with the deceased, as per the pleadings in the claim petition. Furthermore, no person was examined to prove the post mortem report of the deceased. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the finding on issue No.1, therefore, deserved to be reversed. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Noor Mohammad, who was eye witness to the accident, was examined. The eye witness proved the accident, and the stand taken in the written statement by the appellants was very evasive, as they also halfheartedly admitted the accident by mentioning therein that appellant No.2 was the driver and appellant No.1 was the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondents merely denied the accident. It was proved that driver of the tractor, was charged in criminal case, as the FIR was registered against him. In addition, one of the eye witness was also examined. It cannot be said that the finding of FAO No. 1323 of 2008 -4- the learned Tribunal on issue No.1 was outcome of misreading of evidence or based on no evidence, as contended. Once, the accident and death stood proved by cogent evidence, no ground is made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 08, 2010 R.S.