F.A.O.NO. 1973 OF 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 1973 OF 2005 Date of decision:9th August, 2010 New India Assurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Smt. Kanta Devi and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. N.K.Khosla, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Insurance Company which had the benefit of defence under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act is on appeal challenging the award on the ground that the deceased who was driving a motor cycle was himself responsible for the accident and the insured's vehicle was not in any way responsible for causing the accident. Learned counsel would forcefully contend that witness Shiv Kumar who spoke about the accident admitted in the cross examination that the accident had taken place only due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It was a case where the accident had taken place when the deceased was crossing the Patiala-Pehowa road when the truck belonging to the F.A.O.NO. 1973 OF 2005 2 insured hit against the motor cyclist where he died on the spot. It appears the case has been registered against the driver of the truck and FIR had also been filed in the Court. 2. The Tribunal reasoned that the recitals found in the FIR and the fact that the driver of the truck was proceeded against were good enough reasons to make a truck driver responsible for the accident. The Tribunal however, stated that the respondent had not dared to produce any evidence nor rebutted any evidence made by the claimants. I am not prepared to rely on a stray admission of the evidence of PW-2 that the accident arose only on account of the negligence of the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khushnuma Begum vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 1 ACC 155, expounded that the principle of strict liability based on Reylands v. Fletcher would apply to explain motor accidents cases also and stated that the Tribunals will be competent to decide on the issue of negligence, irrespective of the findings rendered by the Criminal Courts. The subsequent development of law relating to claims arising out of “hit and run” cases and “strict liability” on no fault basis are further dimensions of judicial approach to see that victims of motor accidents are not left high and dry. Indeed, the element of negligence that has to be established in the Motor Vehicles Act is indeed very light. The Tribunal shall have no need to indulge in intricate analysis in dealing with issue of negligence and if on broad probabilities, if the accident could have been averted by exercise of careful driving but not so done, the aspect F.A.O.NO. 1973 OF 2005 3 of negligence ought to be taken as proved. The finding of the Tribunal that the truck owner was responsible for the accident, especially when the truck driver would choose not to examine himself and subject himself to cross examination, I would hold it to be sufficient to sustain the award. The appeal by the Insurance Company is therefore, dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 9th August, 2010 Shivani Kaushik