F.A.O.No.4334 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1.F.A.O.No.4334 of 2007 Oriental Insurance Company ...Petitioner Versus Baljeet Kaur and others ...Respondents 2.F.A.O.No.4336 of 2007 Oriental Insurance Company ...Petitioner Versus Surja Ram and others ...Respondents Date of Decision:-8.10.2009 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Vinod Chaudhari, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): This judgment shall dispose of aforementioned two appeals i.e. FAO Nos.4334 and 4336 of 2007, which have been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company challenging the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar in Claim Petition No.179 of 2001 and Claim Petition No.46 of 2006 respectively. Moreover, both these claim petitions have arisen out of the same accident and the same were disposed of by a common award and in both these appeals, the aforesaid award has been challenged on the same grounds. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of these appeals, are that on 30.8.2004 Surender Singh (deceased) along with Surja Ram had started from village Talwandi Rana for Hisar on F.A.O.No.4334 of 2007 2 motor cycle bearing registration No.HR-20-G/4348, which was being driven by deceased Surender Singh at a moderate speed. When they reached in the area of village Talwandi Rana, a Tata Indica car bearing registration No.HR-20-H/8441, which was being driven by respondent-Raj Singh in a rash and negligent manner, came from the back side of Surender Singh deceased and struck into the motorcycle. Surender Singh and Surja Ram received serious and grievous injuries. Surender Singh died at the spot due to the injuries. Driver Raj Singh ran away from the spot with the vehicle after causing the accident. The FIR was also lodged in this regard. The legal representatives of deceased Surender Singh in Claim Petition No.179 of 2001 and Surja Ram injured in Claim Petition No.46 of 2006 sought compensation. The aforesaid claim petitions were contested by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle by filing a joint written statement denying the allegations and stating that driver Raj Singh was driving the car at a moderate speed and the accident took place due to the fault of the deceased himself. The appellant-Insurance Company also filed written statement denying its liability to pay the compensation. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 21.8.2006:- 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of TATA Indica No.HR20-H/8441 by respondent No.1 Raj Singh?OPP. 2. Whether the petitioners of petition No.179 of 2001 Baljit Kaur Vs. Raj Singh etc. are entitled to any compensation on F.A.O.No.4334 of 2007 3 account of death of Surender if so, how much and from whom?OPP. 3. Whether the petitioner of petition No.46 of 2006 titled Surja Ram Vs. Raj Singh etc. is entitled to any compensation on account of injuries sustained by him, if so, how much and from whom?OPP. 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties?OPR. 5. Relief. It is also relevant to mention here that appellant- Insurance Company had filed an application under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with a prayer to contest the petitions on merits also. The aforesaid application was allowed, as the counsel for the respondent-claimants had no objection to the same. It is also pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid permission was granted to the appellant-Company vide order dated 14.11.2005. It is also relevant to point out that except the aforesaid issues, no other issue was claimed by the parties. The respondent-claimants in order to prove their case examined PW3 Mukesh Gupta Ahlmad in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, who stated that respondent Raj Singh was facing trial for offences under sections 279, 338, 304-A and 427 IPC with regard to the instant accident. PW5 Surja Ram the injured-claimant also supported the version given in the petition. On the other hand, despite the fact that the appellant-Company was permitted to contest the claim of the respondents on merits also, it failed to produce any evidence on record in support of its case. F.A.O.No.4334 of 2007 4 The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent Raj Singh and granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,65,000/- to the respondent- claimants in FAO No.4334 of 2007 and Rs.15000/- to respondent- claimant in FAO No.4336 of 2007. In the present appeals, which have been filed by the Insurance Company, the only ground raised by it, is that the Tribunal had failed to appreciate the fact that it was a visibly planted case with the active connivance of the parties in order to cause wrongful loss to the Insurance Company. In support of its case, counsel for the appellant has referred to the fact that the FIR was got recorded against an unknown driver of the unknown vehicle, who later on due to active connivance of the police involved driver Raj Singh and his vehicle and thus the findings of the Tribunal are liable to be reversed in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and find no merit in the arguments raised by him. The respondent-claimants discharged their initial burden to prove the accident in question by the driver of the offending vehicle by examining PW3 and PW5. However, the respondents have not produced any evidence to rebut the evidence produced by the respondent-claimants. Despite the fact that appellant-Company was granted permission to contest the case on merits, it failed to lead any evidence in support of its case. It was specific case of the appellant that no accident had taken place with the offending vehicle and the same was falsely involved, yet no witness has been F.A.O.No.4334 of 2007 5 examined by the appellant-Insurance Company in support of its case. Even the pleas raised in the written statement by the appellant- Insurance Company have not been supported by producing any of its official. Thus, I find no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed. 8.10.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) AS Judge