SO V Ie 1 FeAeOaNoe 315 of 1996 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ee60 Noe 315 of 1996 Date of Decisionl May I4 2010 r 503wjlrleKuoothers V Paramjit Singt anl others 0 C I Present MrJagdish Manchanda Advocate C5 for the appellants Mr N K Khosla Advocate for respondentNo the Oriental Insurance Company Z Limited L I hLorl a5 This appeal has been filed against the Award dated 7 131995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Z Kurukshetra hereinafter referred to as the TribunalI whereby ll ciaim petition filed by the appelIantsclaima nts under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 r short the Act for the grant of compens2tion on account of death of RajlnderSingh in an accident was dismissed GurjinderKaur a ppelIarlt No l is the widow of RajinderSingh whereas Harpreet Kul bir Singh Gurloreet and Baldeep opeilants Nos2 to 51 are the sons of RajinderSingh The facts of the case in brief as cac be gatheredfrorn the ciaim petition are thOt On 3J 1991 Rajincler5ingh deceased was comingto his Village Bodhni on a scooter bearing . Rashmi 2012.09.03 13: 45 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 51 1 2 1 FeAeOlloe 315 of 1996 registration NoHR0143 19 He was driving the scooter on the Ieft Side of the road When he reached near the Mazza Farm on Pehowaurukshetra road a tractor bearing registration NoHNE340 beingdriven by ParamjitSingh respondent No1J m came from Pehowa side The said tractor was being driven Irl C a rash and negligent manner as a result of which it struck against 0 C the scooter being driven by RajinderSingh leceasedl After the accident RajinderSinghfell down from his scooter and sustained C5 I rnultiple grievousinjuries on vanous parts of his body Rajinder Singhdied at the spot This accident had taken place in the Z presenceof JaspalSingh whO at that time was coming on his cycle from VillageLohar Majra After the accident the driver of the tractor sped away his tractor from the spot The a ppellants 08 claimed compensation to the tune of Rs 10000001e along with costs and interest The claimants further prayed for award of a7 Z Rs50001e on account of no fault Iiability under Section 140 ll of the Act In the written statement filed by ParamjitSingh and Nos 1 and 2 driver and owner of the tractor respectively they admitted the accident on the date time and place as allegedin the claim petition but averred that the accident had taken placeon account ofthe negligenceof RajinderSingh The ownership of the tractor in question to be of respondentNo2 and thatit stood insured with respondent No3 had not been denied by them The Insurance Company respondent No In its . Rashmi 2012.09.03 13: 45 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 52 reI 7 r W 8 AeOIio 315 of 1996 t written statement averred that the accident if any had due to the negiigent driving of the scooter by RajinderSingh deceasedJhimself It was added that no accident of the scooter ever took place with the tractor in question It was 1 further allegedthat in fact the claimants had been orced by their C Advocate to file the claim petition in collusion with respondents 0 0 Nos 1 and 2 I On the pleadingsof the parties the followingIssues t5 were framed by the Tribunal on 261019941 Z Il 1 Whether the accident in question tr resutting in death of Rajinder Singh was I caused due to rash and negligent driving 08 of Tractor No HNEe9340 by ParamjitSingl respondent No12 OPP w Z 2 Ifissue Nol is proved whether Ll the claimants are entitled to compensation if so to what effect and from whom70PP 3 VVhetherthe claim petition has been filed in collusion with claimant and respondent Nos 1 and 2 as alieged7OPR 4 Whether the ciaim petition IS not rnaintainable in the present form as alleged70PP 5 Whether the claim petition IS bad for misoinder and nonjoinder of necessarv . Rashmi 2012.09.03 13: 45 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 53 6 VW 4 FeAeOnNoe 315 of 1996 parties70PP l 6 Whether the claimantsare estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present claim petition70PR m 7 Whether the Tractor NoHNE3340 was not being driven by a person holdinga va Iid 0 C drivingIicence as alleged7OPR 8 Whether the claim petition is barred by C I Iimitation and Iiable to be dismissed7 9 Retief Z C The Tribuna 1 after recording evidence of the parties I came to the conclusion that death of RajinderSinghdid take 08 place Ill the accident which took place on 31991 at about 30 P On Road butthe claimants failed 3 Z to establish that the accident was caused by the rash and Qm negligent drivingof the tractor in questioneither by respondent e 0 4 Noel or by respondentNO2 The Tribunal also formed the Vlew that the claim petition has been filed as a result of collusion betweenthe claimants on the one hand and respondents Nos1 and 2 on the other hand on their respondent Nos 1 and 2sl assumption that the tractor being insured the Iiabilitywould fail on SPOndent No3 the Insurance company Resultantly the Tribun81 held that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation It was further held that even on the principteof No Fauit Liability it has to be established that which was the 1 . Rashmi 2012.09.03 13: 45 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 54 r30 r 4V 5 FeA0 Noe 315 of 1996 vehicle involved in the accident in question but Irl this case the claimants have failed to establish that the accident in question was actuallycaused by tractor bearing registrationNo HNE9340 It was further held that the claim petition was not maintainable 1 in the present form because therein it has been allegedthat r respondentNol was driving the tractor in question at the time of 0 C accident whereas respondentNo2 CharanjeetSingh who appeared I as RlAI1 stated that he was drivingthe said tractor atthe time of C5 I accident In view of these findings the Tribunal dismissedthe claim petition Z I have heard Mr Jagdish Manchanda Advocate 2 appeanng for the appellantsand Mr N K Khosla Advocate I appeanng for respondentNo the Oriental Insurance Company 08 Limited and have gone throughthe records of the case As noticed above it has been averred in the claim 7 Z petition that ParamjeetSingh respondentNolI was drivingthe 1 0 tractor when the accident had allegedlytaken place However CharanjeetSingh espondent No21 when appeared as R1 stated that he was drivingthe tractor in question at the time of accident In the First InformationReport copy Exh ibit Pe2 the registration number of the tractor which allegedly caused the accident on 39 1991 has not been mentioned However strangelyenough respondents Nos 1 and 2 in their written statement admitted the accident Besides CharanjeetSingh respondent N02 while deposing in Court as RVVl stated that he was driving his truck bearing 1egistration NoHNE . Rashmi 2012.09.03 13: 45 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 55 r 40 FOaNoe3150f 1996 9341 which was involved in the accident meaning the offending tractor belongedto hir However this statement of CharanjeetSingh WlI IS falsified from a bare perusalof the Insurance Poiicy Exhibit R2J in which respondent N61 m ParamjitSingh IS mentioned as owner of the truck The claim r petitionhas been filed after more than two years of the accident 0 0 which took place on 31991 GurjinderKaur while deposing in Court as PW1 stated that the names ofthe driver and owner C5 I of the truck were mentioned to her about one month prior to the filingof the claim petition by one Balwinder Singhof Pehowa r Z r The said Balwinder Singh was not examined in support of the r ctaim petition The evidence of GurjinderKaur PWll is nothing but hearsayWhich iS not acceptablein Iaw 08 Another fact which deserves to be taken note of is that JaspalSingh PW2 who is author of the First InformationReport 7 Z stated therein First Information Reportl that while he was Ll driving his cycle he had spotted the tractor being driven with the help of a torch Iight because the head Iightof the tractor was not in workingorder He further menttoned in the First Information Report that he had heard the noise of collision when he was about two furlongsaway from the tractortrolley The time of accident IS about 8O P It is not believabie that Jaspal Singh wou Id be able to witness the occurrence in the torch Iight of the tractor driver and that too frorn a distance of about two furlongs In these circumstances the deposition of JaspalSingh6PW 2I in Court that he had identified the driver of . Rashmi 2012.09.03 13: 45 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 56 lJ 1 5 r m7 FeAeO Noe 315 of 1996 the tractor being CharanjeetSingh IS not acceptable Singh PW21 could not see the face of the Driver of the tractor in the darkness especiallywhen the head Iightof the tractor was not in workingorder 1 In view of the above there is no escape from the conclusion that the claimants have failed to prove that the 0 C accident in question had been caused due to the rash and I negligentdriving of tractor NoHNE9340 either by respondent C5 No or respondent No 2 Under the circumstances it has rightly been held by the Iearned Tribunal that the claim petitionhas Z in fact been filed as a result of collusion betweenthe claimants on 0 the one hand and respondentsNos 1 and 2 on the other hand I on their respondentsNos l and 2sl assumptionthat the tractor 08 bei ng insured the tiabiIity would fall on the Insurance Company respondent No3l this appealis herebydismissed mm Z beingwithout any merit IvaYIi1 1 2010 PALI ak 1 OUDGE t 1 3 r CA . Rashmi 2012.09.03 13: 45 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document