FAO No. 1834 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1834 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.9.2011 Bant Singh ...Appellant Versus Jarnail Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.SK Bawa, Advocate for the appellant Ms.Sonal Datta, Advocate for the respondent *** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.(Oral) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Bant Singh, driver-cum-owner of the offending Truck, bearing registration No. HR 38C 3782, against the award dated 9.12.2010, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, (for brevity 'the Tribunal') vide which the claim petition of the respondent -claimant has been allowed. Succinctly put, the facts of the present case are that on 27.10.2008 at about 8 PM, claimant Jarnail Singh and his uncle Mita Ram were going towards their house on their respective motorcycles. Mita Ram was following Jarnail Singh on his motorcycle. When they reached some distance after passing through the chowk bye pass, Narwana Road, Patran, motorcycle of Jarnail Singh bearing registration No.PB-10-BW-2558, FAO No. 1834 of 2011 (O&M) 2 struck against a stationed truck bearing registration No. HR 38-C 3782, parked on the road without any indication. Due to the dazzling caused by the lights of the vehicles, coming from the opposite side, the claimant Jarnail Singh could not see the parked truck. As a result, claimant suffered multiple injuries. He was rushed to the Durga Hospital, Patran by Mita Ram with the help of Bant Singh Driver. After giving first aid, the injured was referred to Rajindra Hospital at Patiala, where he remained admitted upto 14.11.2008. In this regard FIR No. 229 dated 11.11.2008 was registered under Sections 283 and 337 at Police Station Patran, against the appellant, who is the driver-cum- owner of the offending truck. The injured -Jarnail Singh, claimant, filed the claim petition through his brother and friend Karnail Singh, which was accepted by the learned Tribunal, and a sum of ` 3,09,500/- was awarded as compensation. Being dissatisfied with the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal, the appellant-driver-cum-owner has preferred this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has not considered the evidence rightly and passed the award without application of mind. He further contended that the accident caused due to contributory negligence on the part of the injured. It is further contended that Jarnail Singh, injured, never appeared in the witness box. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded a sum of ` 50,000/- towards future prospects, whereas, there is no evidence that he was working anywhere. In support his arguments, he cites FAO No. 1834 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Raj Rani vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2009(4) Punjab Law Reporter 789. To controvert these submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has stated that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the facts and evidence, and awarded a suitable compensation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record with due care and circumspection. The fact of accident is admitted. As per the affidavit Ex.PW- 1/A of Mita Ram PW1, who was the eye witness, the driver-cum-owner of offending truck admitted his fault and agreed to pay the compensation to the claimant, but later on, he refused to pay the same. He further averred in his affidavit that the accident was caused due to the fault of the appellant, who parked the truck without any indication or parking lights on. An FIR was lodged. As such, parking of vehicle on the road without any indication and parking lights on is a violation of traffic rules. Appellant had not been able to prove the contributory negligence on the part of the injured. As per medical record, the claimant -respondent remained admitted in Hospital from 28.10.2008 to 14.11.2008 and his mental condition was not proper. As per the statement of Dr.Harish Tuli, PW2, the claimant suffered head injury, it will take time to heal and the claimant was not mentally fit. The claimant-respondent was 20 years of age at the time of the accident. The Tribunal's duty is to award a just, reasonable and adequate compensation irrespective of the fact as to whether any speicif FAO No. 1834 of 2011 (O&M) 4 plea on that behalf was taken by the claimant or not in the pleadings. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation towards future prospects. As the truck was not insured, the driver and owner is liable to pay the compensation. There is no infirmity in the well reasoned award. There is no dispute regarding the principles of contributory negligence as laid down in Raj Rani's case (Supra). But in this case, no contributory negligence is proved. The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the part of the claimant and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as negligence. There is no failure of reasonable care on the claimant's part. By no stretch of imagination, contributory negligence can be inferred from the facts and circumstances came on record. As a sequel of the above discussion, no interference is warranted in the findings recorded by learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal being bereft of any merit is dismissed without costs. 16.09.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE