F.A.O.NO. 2083 OF 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 2083 OF 2008 Date of decision: 28th July, 2010 National Insurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Prem Singh and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. 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 is in appeal which had the benefit of permission granted by the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to take up defence on all grounds. The claim was made for death of a pedestrian who was ran over by the fourth respondent vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-26GA-1626. The action in defence by the fourth respondent was that the vehicle had been parked at the red light signal. The action in defence was taken that the vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-6910 belonging to the second respondent Sanjay which was coming very fast and dashed at F.A.O.NO. 2083 OF 2008 2 the rear side of the tanker No. HR-26GA-1626 and on account of such impact the vehicle moved in front and ran over the pedestrian. 2. At the trial, the driver of the fourth respondent Prem Singh son of Sultan Singh had given evidence about the fact that his tanker HR-26GA-1626 had been actually stopped by the police and when it was stationary the tanker No. HR-6910 came at high speed and hit his tanker from behind, as a result of which its vehicle hit the deceased who was crossing the road. The Tribunal found that the first respondent Prem Singh who was the driver of the offending vehicle did not take courage to examine himself and offer evidence in explanation that how accident had taken place. An eye witness was examined as another Prem Singh PW-1 who gave evidence of a fact that the vehicle belonging to the fourth respondent ran over the said only when the second respondent vehicle hit the fourth respondent vehicle from behind and it was that impact that cause the accident. In the chief examination he has stated that the accident had taken place due to the fault of both the drivers. However, in the cross examination, it was admitted by him that the fourth respondent vehicle was stationary (“in standing position”) and accident took place only when the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-6910 in a rash and negligent manner hit against the other tanker. This narration of event in my view coupled with the explanation given by the driver of the fourth respondent vehicle was sufficient to say that it was second respondent tanker F.A.O.NO. 2083 OF 2008 3 bearing Registration No. HR-6910 that was responsible for the accident. 3. The Tribunal has not analysed the evidence in any sense except that the claimant had stated that there was the negligence on account of both the vehicles. For an on looker a person the vehicle that run over is primarily responsible and if another vehicle contributed to it it was secondarily responsible. Objectively, when evidence had been let in by the driver whose vehicle had run over explaining the situation under which the accident had happened, it behoved judicial responsibility for a court to analyse such evidence. I accept the contention urged on behalf of the appellant that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the second respondent only which was driven by the first respondent. I am not impressed with the argument that both the drivers had been challaned by the police and therefore, the case must be taken as composite negligence of both the vehicles. The award of the Tribunal in so far as cast the liability on the appellant is set aside. The entire amount that of the compensation shall be borne by the second respondent and its insurer the third respondent. The appeal is allowed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 28th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik