FAO No.1507 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1507 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: October 21, 2009. Ranjit Singh ...Appellant(s) v. Balwinder Kaur & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Vivek Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): The present appeal has been filed by the appellant who is driver of the offending vehicle, challenging the impugned award whereby the appellant along with respondent No.3 (owner of the offending vehicle) has been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally to respondents No.1, 2, 5 and 6 on account of death of Jarnail Singh who died in a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the appellant. As per the averments made in this appeal, on 31.3.2004 the deceased along with Harvinder Singh and Harvir Kaur was travelling in a Maruti car bearing registration No.PAD-72 which was driven by Tarlochan Singh. When the car reached near Bhalla Petrol Pump on Tanda Bye-pass its tyre got punctured. The car was parked on the kacha portion of the road and the punctured tyre was replaced and all the persons who were travelling in the car were standing on the kacha side of the road. In the meantime, truck bearing No.HR-37-3382 (offending vehicle) which was driven by the appellant in a rash and negligent manner came from the side of Jalandhar and struck against Jarnail Singh and Tarlochan Singh who were standing on FAO No.1507 of 2007 -: 2 :- the kacha portion of the road. Due to the aforesaid accident, Jarnail Singh fell on the ground and sustained injuries. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Tanda whereby the doctors declared him dead. FIR No.77 dated 31.3.2004 was registered in the Police Station Tanda regarding this accident. The offending truck was owned by respondent No.3. The claimants sought compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lacs on account of the death of Jarnail Singh. The claim petition was contested by the appellant pleading that no such accident, as alleged by the claimants, ever took place and actually the deceased suddenly came in front of the truck in question and, thus, the alleged accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased and the appellant was not at fault. The other averments of the claim petition were denied and it was pleaded that the claim petition be dismissed. Respondent No.3 was proceeded against exparte. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the claimants are the legal heirs and dependents of Jarnail Singh deceased? OPP 2. Whether Jarnail Singh died as a result of rash and negligent driving of offending truck bearing No.HR-37- 3382 by respondent No.1? OPP 3. Whether the claimants have no cause of action and locus-standi to file this claim petition? OPP 4. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPR 5. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation, if so, to what extend and from whom? OPP 6. Relief.” Relying on the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that Jarnail Singh died due to the injuries caused by the appellant while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on 31.3.2004 and granted compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs.1,32,000/- payable by appellant and respondent No.3 jointly and severally. The impugned award of the Tribunal has been challenged by FAO No.1507 of 2007 -: 3 :- the appellant only on the ground that the appellant cannot be held liable to pay the compensation as it was a case of contributory negligence, as the same stands proved from the evidence on record and, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellant has averred that it is the admitted case of the parties that the car got punctured on road and the passengers were standing outside the car and the appellant has explained that accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased who suddenly appeared on the road. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. Admittedly, the offending vehicle which was being driven by the appellant struck against Jarnail Singh deceased on the fateful day. The claimants discharge the initial burden of proof which was upon them that Jarnail Singh died due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident caused by the appellant. However, there is no evidence on record to prove the assertion of the appellant that it was Jarnail Singh himself who contributed to the accident by coming suddenly before the offending truck. Thus, in view of the absence of any evidence on record produced by the appellant, no fault can be found with the findings of the Tribunal which have been recorded on appreciation of evidence on record. No merit. Dismissed. October 21, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge