FAO No.2711 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2711 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 9.11.2009 Bhagat Ram ......Appellant Versus Smt.Santosh Devi and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Shailender Kashyap, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is owner's appeal challenging the impugned award whereby the claimant-respondents have been awarded a sum of Rs.5,98,900/- as compensation on account of death of Ram Kumar in a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the appellant. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.8.2007 one ASI Ram Kumar (deceased) and ASI Suresh Kumar were going on motorcycle to police post Jamaal where aforesaid Ram Kumar was posted. ASI Ram Kumar was ahead of Suresh Kumar and when they reached near village Rangri Khera on a link road from the opposite direction, the offending vehicle came which was being driven by the appellant in a rash and negligent manner. The said vehicle struck against the motorcycle of Ram Kumar, ASI, as a result of which Ram Kumar received serious/grievous injuries whereas the respondent-appellant along with the offending vehicle managed to flee away from the scene. Ram Kumar was brought to Civil Hospital, Sirsa, but from there, he was referred to PGI, Rohtak. However, when he was being taken to PGI, Rohtak, his condition became precarious FAO No.2711 of 2009(O&M) 2 and therefore, he was admitted in Metro Hospital, Hisar. FIR No.240 dated 22.8.2007 under Sections 279/304IPC was also registered in Police Station Sadar, Sirsa. The appellant was arrested in a criminal case and is facing trial. Ram Kumar succumbed to his injuries on 24.8.2007. Hence this claim petition. Upon notice, the appellant filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was stated that no such accident had taken place with the offending vehicle by the appellant as alleged and the appellant was implicated falsely in the criminal case as the police official had died. Dismissal of the claim petition was sought. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “I. Whether the accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.DL9C/0691 by respondent No.1 as alleged in the petition? OPP II If issue No.1 is proved whether one Ram Kumar sustained injuries in the accident in question and succumbed to the injuries as alleged in the petition? OPP III If issue Nos.1 & 2 proved whether the petitioners and respondent No.3 are entitled for any compensation on account of termination of life of Ram Kumar, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP IV Whether the petition is not maintainable against respondent as alleged? OPR V Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the petition? OPR VI Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and FAO No.2711 of 2009(O&M) 3 mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPR VII Whether the petition is filed in order to harass the respondents and the respondents are entitled to special costs? OPR VIII Relief.” On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle of the appellant and Ram Kumar sustained injuries in the accident in question and succumbed to the same. The Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to the compensation to be paid by the appellant. Issues No.4 to 7 were also decided against the appellant and the award was passed granting compensation of Rs.5,98,900/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization in favour of claimant-respondents. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred at law while not appreciating the fact that there was a delay in the registration of the FIR and it was highly impossible that in an accident case where a police official met with an accident and ultimately lost his life, it took so much of delay for the police to register an FIR after one day and thus, it is established on record that the delay was deliberately made so as to manipulate a false case upon the appellant. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that from the evidence on record, it is not proved that the appellant caused the accident in question and therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence on record has returned a finding of fact that the accident in question had taken place due FAO No.2711 of 2009(O&M) 4 to rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant and the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and there was nothing on the file to show that the claim petition was filed with a mala fide intention to falsely implicate the appellant. Simply because FIR was got recorded next day of the occurrence, in the absence of any cogent evidence, it cannot be said that since there was a delay, therefore, a false case was fastened upon the appellant. Moreover, the claimants have placed on record testimony of PW-5-Sh. Suresh Kumar, who has supported the case of the claimants. There is nothing on record to contradict the testimony of the aforesaid witness who was an eyewitness. Despite the fact that the appellant has specifically pleaded in the written statement that a false case has been fastened upon him, he has failed to produce any evidence in support of this contention. Neither any such evidence which is in support of the appellant and which has been ignored, has been pointed out. No other point was urged. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. November 9, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE