FAO No. 1481 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1481 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.03.2010 Paramjit Singh @ Gulab Singh ....Appellant Versus Balak Ram and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: -Mr. Shailender Kashyap, Advocate, for the appellant. VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) This appeal, by the driver, is directed against the award dated 11.2.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, vide which the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, stands accepted. The claimants claimed compensation on the pleadings, that on 4.5.2009, Smt. Balbir Kaur along with Baljinder, Santosh, Asha, Gulabo, Krishna and Bachni were travelling in three-wheeler to attend the last rites of their relation. At about 12/12.30 p.m. when they were coming back and entered the main road, scorpio bearing registration No. HR-36/H-8687 being driven rashly and negligently came from Delhi side and hit against the three-wheeler. As a result of the impact, all the passengers of three-wheeler received injuries. The injuries received by Smt. Balbir Kaur proved fatal. The accident was said to have been witnessed by Balak Ram and his brother Ashok Kumar, who were said to be following them on a separate vehicle, and who had also shifted the injured to the hospital. The accident occurred due to the involvement of scorpio FAO No. 1481 of 2010 (O&M) -2- bearing No. HR-36/H-8687, which was driven by respondent No.1/appellant and owned by respondents No.4 and 5. The vehicle was not insured. The claim petition was contested by the appellant and respondent No.5. Whereas respondent No.4 did not contest the claim petition. Preliminary objections were raised with regard to maintainability of the claim petition, by denying the involvement of scorpio bearing No. HR-36/H-8687 in the accident. The petition was said to be bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of owner and insurer of the three-wheeler. On merits, the averments made were denied. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the three-wheeler, in which the deceased and other injured were travelling. The liability was denied. Respondent No.5 herein filed separate written statement and contested the claim petition by raising preliminary objections as well as on merit. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, recorded the finding that the accident, causing the death of Smt. Balbir Kaur, occurred due to involvement of scorpio No. HR-36/H-8687, which was being driven by respondent No.1, Paramjit Singh alias Gulab Singh i.e. the appellant. The claimants were held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.4,17,300/- (Rupees four lac seventeen thousand and three hundred only). Income of the deceased was taken to be Rs.3,200/- (Rupees three thousand and two hundred only) per month. The learned counsel for the appellant challenges the impugned award, by contending that the claim petition was not FAO No. 1481 of 2010 (O&M) -3- competent, as the driver and owner of three-wheeler were not impleaded as party. In absence of impleadment of the owner and driver of the three-wheeler, the learned Tribunal could not have fastened the liability on the appellant, the driver of the scorpio involved in the accident, as the three-wheeler was also involved in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that PW1 was not able to give the complete number of the scorpio and only gave number 8687, therefore, her statement could not have been believed. Learned counsel for the appellant also contends, that the learned Tribunal wrongly relied upon the statement of PW2 Balak Ram, for the reason, that though he was admittedly 7th pass but was not able to tell the number of the motorcycle or three-wheeler in which he or the deceased was travelling. By merely giving number of the scorpio, he did not discharge the onus to prove, that the scorpio was involved in the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant further contends that mere registration of FIR, on which reliance was placed, was of no consequence, and could not be taken as a proof of the fact that the scorpio was involved in the accident or that the driver was guilty of accident. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. In order to succeed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the party claiming compensation, has only to prove that the vehicle was in use. Once, in the written statement it was stated by the appellant, that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the three-wheeler, the involvement of the scorpio stood admitted. It cannot be said that the scorpio was not involved in the accident or was not in use. FAO No. 1481 of 2010 (O&M) -4- Mere non-joinder of the owner and driver of the three-wheeler also could not lead to the conclusion, that the claim petition was bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties, as the accident admittedly occurred while the scorpio was in use. The conditions stipulated, under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act stood fulfilled. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the statements of PW1 and PW2 could not lead to the conclusion, that the scorpio was involved in the accident, deserves to be noticed to be rejected, in view of the pleading in the written statement, wherein the negligence was attributed to the three-wheeler involved in the accident, with the scorpio. Finally, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that registration of FIR itself was not a proof of involvement of scorpio in accident, is again mis-conceived. It is a piece of evidence, which is required to be taken into consideration, though this alone may be sufficient to prove negligence on the part of driver. The fact of negligence or rash and negligent driving is otherwise not required to be proved in a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Tribunal was not bound to wait for final adjudication of the criminal case, as contended, nor the findings of the Criminal Court are binding on the learned Tribunal, as learned Tribunal was required to reach to independent conclusion on questions raised. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 22, 2010 R.S.