CR No. 301 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 301 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.8.2009 Karan Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Krishna and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/driver-cum-owner of the tractor has prayed for quashing of the award dated 7.10.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (in short “the Tribunal”) in MACT Case No. 120 of 2006 titled as 'Krishna v. Karan Singh and others', whereby a compensation of Rs.5,000/- was awarded to the claimant- Krishna for the injuries received by her in a road-accident. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 2.5.2006, the injured claimant and deceased Deepak along with their relatives were coming from Sonepat to Village Tanda, District Sonepat, in a three wheeler bearing registration No. HR-69/4760 being driven by its driver at a very moderate speed. At about 7.30/7.45 PM when the said three wheeler reached near the fields of Kundan, in the area of village CR No. 301 of 2009 -2- Jhundpur, a tractor make Escort along with trollery, bearing registration No. HRS-4131, having been driven by Karan Singh (the petitioner herein) in a rash and negligent manner and without any lights, came there from the opposite side and struck against the said three wheeler resulting into the death of one Deepak and injuries to other occupants of the three-wheeler, including the claimant-Krishna. A case FIR No. 94 dated 2.5.2006 under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Rai, District Sonepat, in that regard on the statement of one Vir Bhan. She had filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of the injuries suffered by her. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the driver-cum- owner of the offending vehicle, i.e. tractor, owner of the three-wheeler and the insurer of the vehicles. The petitioner and respondents No.3 herein filed their separate respective written statements. The driver- cum-owner of the tractor (the petitioner herein) in his written statement pleaded that no accident took place with his vehicle and the FIR was got registered in collusion with claimant Veer Bhan. It was further pleaded that as no accident had taken place with the offending vehicle, therefore, the claimants were not entitled to any compensation from him. The owner of the three-wheeler (respondent No.2) in his written statement pleaded that the three-wheeler was driven by a driver and the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and the FIR was registered only against the driver of the tractor. The insurer of three-wheeler in its written statement pleaded that the driver of the said vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving CR No. 301 of 2009 -3- licence and the said vehicle was not being driven in terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants as no information as required under Section 134 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act was given by the owner of the vehicle and that as per the FIR, the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the tractor. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties held that the accident took place on 2.5.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor driven by Karan Singh (the petitioner herein). Accordingly, the Tribunal vide award dated 7.10.2008 allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the claimant-Krishna Devi on account of the injuries suffered by her. The claimant was also held entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual realization. The driver- cum-owner of the tractor (the petitioner herein) was directed to make payment of the compensation amount to the claimant. Feeling aggrieved, the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the file, this Court is satisfied that the compensation of Rs.5000/- along with interest awarded to the claimant by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. No illegality or perversity could be found in the impugned award which may warrant CR No. 301 of 2009 -4- interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there being no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. August 27, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE