F.A.O. No.4149 of 2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** F.A.O. No.4149 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision:10.12.2008 M/s New Fatehgarh Sahib Sirhind Bus (Private Ltd.), Sirhind District Patiala .....Appellant Vs. Nasib Kaur and others .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vishal Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.6. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 9.8.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur whereby he awarded a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- in favour of the claimants and against Sukhvir Singh, driver of the offending vehicle (respondent No.1) and M/s New Fatehgarh Sahib Sirhind Bus (Private Limited), Sirhind, owner of the offending vehicle (respondent No.2) with a direction that these respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay this amount together with interest at the rate of Rs.12% per annum from the date of execution of the petition till the date of award and future interest at the rate of Rs.6% per annum from the date of award till the actual realisation of the amount in question. The facts giving rise to the claim petition are that on the fateful F.A.O. No.4149 of 2004 (O&M) -2- day, i.e., 9.2.1995 at about 9:00/ 10:00 a.m., the deceased – Major Singh as well as Balwinder Singh were proceeding on their different cycles from Village Bhollu Wala to Talwandi Bhai. When they had just neared G.T. Road and covered a distance of about half kilometer, the bus bearing registration No. PB11-C-8797 being driven by Sukhvir Singh- respondent came from Ferozepur side at fast speed, without blowing any horn and struck against the cycle of the deceased. As a result of its impact, the deceased fell down and the bus dragged him upto a distance of 20/25 yards. Sukhvir Singh, driver fled away from the spot after accident. Major Singh in injured condition was removed to Civil Hospital, Moga by Balwinder Singh as well as Nasib Kaur. From there, he was referred to CMC, Ludhiana being in serious condition. This accident was witnessed by Hardial Singh son of Mastan Singh as well being a passenger in the same bus. Major Singh remained hospitalised for about 14 days, whereafter he succumbed to the injuries on 23.2.1995. The accident took place due to the rashness and negligence of Sukhbir Singh in driving the bus. In answer to this claim, respondents No.1 and 2 in their joint written statement denied the accident as well as death of Major Singh due to rashness or negligent driving on the part of Sukhvir Singh, respondent. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- 1. Whether Major Singh died on 23.2.95 due to the accident dated 9.2.95 as a result of rash and negligent driving of bus No.PB11C-8797 by Sukhvir Singh respondent? OPA 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPA F.A.O. No.4149 of 2004 (O&M) -3- 3. Whether the claimants are legal heirs of Major Singh deceased? OPA 4. Whether the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not holding a valid driving licence? If so, to what effect? OPR 5. Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award in the terms as noted supra. Feeling aggrieved therewith, M/s New Fatehgarh Sahib, Sirhind Bus (Private Limited), Sirhind has filed this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Tribunal with due care and circumspection. Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant canvassed at the bar that as is borne out from the impugned award, the claimants have utterly failed to establish that the accident indeed was a consequence of the rashness or negligence on the part of Sukhvir Singh- respondent – driver. As follows from the testimony of AW2 Nasib Kaur, widow of the deceased, she regretted her inability to disclose the name of the Company to which the offending bus did belong or name of the driver, who was driving the bus at the material time. To add further to it, the driver was also not got identified by her at any stage and on taking these facts into consideration cumulatively, it emerges out that the claimants have not been able to prove that the accident was witnessed by her. Consequently, it would be going too far to rely upon her statement. F.A.O. No.4149 of 2004 (O&M) -4- To controvert these submissions, Mr. Vishal Chaudhary, Advocate representing respondent No.6, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited argued that the evidence of Nasib Kaur (sic.) cannot be excluded from consideration merely because she could not answer to the questions as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. Furthermore, the evidence of Balwinder Singh AW1 adequately establishes on the record that the accident occurred owing to the rashness or negligence of Sukhvir Singh, driver- respondent. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. To the query, the learned counsel for the appellant answered that Sukhvir Singh- driver has been challaned and he is facing trial before a Criminal Court. Ex.P.50 is the certified copy of the FIR. It is an acknowledged principle of law that if the driver was being tried on account of the rash and negligent driving, that prima-facie proves that the accident had occurred due to his rash or negligent act. An identical view has been taken by this Court in re: Girdhari Lal v. Radhey Shyam and others, (1993) 2 Punjab Law Reporter 109, in which it has been held that “Thus, it is prima-facie safe to conclude that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Radhey Shyam- respondent in which the claimants suffered injuries.” Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, especially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. The Accident Claims Tribunal are obligated to take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability, merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. The Court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. F.A.O. No.4149 of 2004 (O&M) -5- The transport operators too often get away, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant being bereft of any merit are turned down. Mr. Sharma further pressed into service that the learned Tribunal did not take into account that Sukhvir Singh, driver- respondent did not even possess an effective driving licence at the relevant time and thus the appellant- owner of the bus in question could not be saddled with the liability. Mr. Chaudhary countered this argument by urging with full force that the driver had placed on record the original driving licence Ex.RW1/A which on being verified from the Licensing Authority, Amritsar was found fake and it is because of this reason that the Insurance Company has been exonerated. I have well considered these submissions. Harvinder Kaur, Clerk D.T.O. Office, Amritsar has deposed from the official record that licence Ex.RW1/A neither bears the seal nor signatures of the DTO and even the number mentioned in the driving licence did not exist in the record of the office. It is on the basis of this documentary evidence that the learned Tribunal held that this driving licence can be termed to be forged and fabricated document. In view of the evidence of Harvinder Kaur (sic.), no fault can be found with these findings returned by the learned Tribunal. As is borne out from the record, the deceased was running a grocery shop. In view of this fact, the learned Tribunal took up the dependency to the extent of Rs.1300/- per month, i.e., 2/3rd of his income. The deceased was 46 years of age at the time of his death. 12 has been F.A.O. No.4149 of 2004 (O&M) -6- applied as a multiplier, which is quite just and reasonable. In view of the above discussion, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal in reaching the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to the award of Rs.1,56,000/- as compensation together with interest in no manner can be faulted with. Sequelly, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. December 10, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No