FAO No. 1239 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1239 of 1992 Date of decision 11.5.2009. Kam Singh and others ...... Appellants. versus Subhash Chander ...... Respondent. Present : Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for the respondent. L.N.MITTAL,J.(Oral) This is appeal by claimants, whose claim petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ( in short – the Act) stand dismissed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala vide impugned award dated 16.4.1992. Claimants' version is that on 25.11.1988 at about 9.45 a.m. Balbir Singh since deceased was going on Hero Majestic No.HRX 3086. After crossing bridge of Kali Paltan, he reached GT Road for going towards Ambala Cantt. Respondent Subhash Chander came driving his scooter No.HNE-8720 rashly and negligently and hit the vehicle of Balbir Singh from behind. Resultantly, Balbir Singh suffered multiple injuries and became unconscious. He succumbed to his injuries on way to hospital. The FAO No. 1239 of 1992 2 accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the respondent. The claimants are two sons and a widow of the deceased. They are his legal heirs and were dependent on his income. The deceased was drawing monthly pension of Rs.536/- and was also agriculturist earning about 1500/- per month. On these allegations, claimants demanded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The respondent, in his written statement, denied the factum of accident caused by him or involving his scooter. It was rather pleaded that the respondent while going from Ambala City to Ambala Cantt reached near bridge of Kali Paltan and found that the deceased had been hit by bus No.HNK-3064 of Karnal Depot of Haryana Roadways, being driven by Baldev Singh. The respondent stopped his scooter at some distance out of curiosity and meanwhile Station House Officer came there, but the bus driver concocted false story that the deceased was hit by the scooter of the respondent. In fact, the accident took place with the aforesaid bus being driven by Baldev Singh. Various other pleas were also raised. The claimants filed replication controverting the pleas raised by the respondent and reiterated the allegations made in the claim petition. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for adjudication :- (1) Whether the accident in question and the resultant death of Balbir Singh took place due to rash and negligent driving of scooter No.HNE-8720 by Subhash Chander respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP. (2) Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of the FAO No. 1239 of 1992 3 deceased ? OPP. (3) Relief. Learned Claims Tribunal, vide impugned award dated 16.4.1992, held under issue No.1 that the claimants have failed to establish that Balbir Singh died as a result rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid scooter by respondent. Under issue No.2, it was held that the claimants are legal representatives of the deceased-Balbir Singh. Under issue No.3, the claimants were held not entitled to any compensation in view of finding on issue No.1. Consequently, the claim petition stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have filed this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Chander Mani Ahlmad (PW-1) stated that he could not bring file of the criminal case relating to the accident because the file got burnt during anti Mandal agitation. Head Constable Anant Ram (PW-2) proved copy of FIR Ex.P-1 recorded on the statement of Om Bir Singh eye-witness. Om Bir Singh, while appearing as PW-3, stated that Balbir Singh was going on his Vicky Auto Cycle from village Khelan towards Ambala Cantt and the aforesaid scooter being driven by respondent came from behind and hit the vehicle of Balbir Singh from behind. The accident occurred because of negligence of the respondent. Om Bir Singh has stated that he lodged FIR Ex.P-1 regarding the accident. On the other hand, respondent appeared as RW-1 and broadly stated according to his own version. Case of the claimants in the FIR as well as in the claim petition FAO No. 1239 of 1992 4 was that the deceased came on his vehicle from a side bridge and entered GT road and was just turning toward Ambala Cantt when his vehicle was hit by the offending scooter. However, in the witness box, Om Bir Singh informant changed the version and stated that the deceased was already proceeding on the GT road when his vehicle was hit by the offending scooter from behind. In view of this material change in the statement of the sole eye-witness examined by the claimant, his statement cannot be relied on to give a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending scooter by the respondent. On the other hand, according to the FIR, the deceased on his vehicle entered from side road on to the G.T.Road and was taking turn towards his right hand side. It was, therefore, duty of the deceased Balbir Singh to see that the GT road was clear of the traffic. The deceased should have waited for the traffic already going on the GT road to have crossed. Consequently, it cannot be said that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending scooter by the respondent. However, it has been proved that the aforesaid scooter being driven by respondent was involved in the accident. In this regard, there is statement of Om Bir Singh (PW-3) eye witness of the accident. His statement is corroborated by FIR Ex.P1 which was lodged promptly. Registration number of the offending scooter and the name of respondent as its driver was mentioned in the FIR. Even otherwise, there is no reason why the respondent and his scooter would be involved falsely if the accident had occurred with bus of Haryana Roadways as pleaded by the respondent. It would have been easier for the claimants to claim compensation by arraying FAO No. 1239 of 1992 5 Haryana Roadways as owner of the offending bus if the accident had occurred with bus. Consequently, false implication of the respondent and his scooter in the accident is reasonably ruled out. From the aforesaid, it emerges that the accident occurred between the vehicle of the deceased and the offending scooter being driven by the respondent, but it is not proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the respondent. Finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 is modified to this extent. In view of aforesaid finding on issue No.1, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- payable under Section 92-A of the Act on principle of “no fault liability.” Respondent is liable to pay the same to the claimant. Finding of the Tribunal on issue No.3 is also modified to this extent. In view of the aforesaid, the instant appeal is allowed partly and the impugned award of learned Tribunal is set aside and the claimants/appellants are awarded Rs.15,000/- as compensation to be paid by the respondent along with interest thereon @ 8% p.a. with effect from 10.5.1989, the date of filing of the claim petition till recovery. ( L.N.MITTAL ) JUDGE May 11, 2009 sv