FAO No.1536 of 1999(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.1536 of 1999(O&M) Rajpal ... Appellant VERSUS Raj Kumar and others ... Respondents and FAO No.1854 of 1999(O&M) Raj Kumar and another ... Appellants VERSUS Raj Pal and others ... Respondents Decided on : September 02, 2009 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Suraj Mal Kundu, Advocate for Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the appellant (respondent No.1 in FAO No.1854 of 1999) Ms.Sarravpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr.S.S.Narula, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. (appellants in FAO No.1854 of 1999). A.N.JINDAL, J.- This judgment shall dispose of two connected appeals i.e. FAO No.1536 of 1999 (filed by the claimant Raj Pal) and FAO No.1854 of 1999 (filed by Raj Kumar and Ramphal, driver and owner of the offending tractor) challenging the award dated 25.2.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat. The claimant Raj Pal has prayed for FAO No.1536 of 1999(O&M) [ 2 ] enhancement of compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him, while the driver and owner of the offending tractor have prayed for dismissal of his claim petition. The brief resume of facts is that on 4.8.1997 when Rajpal along with Constable Swaran Singh was going towards Bhalgarh from Police Station Rai in connection with the investigation of a case in jeep bearing Reg.No.HR07-4801. When they reached in front of the petrol pump, they saw the tractor bearing Reg.No.HR10A-9813, driven by Raj Kumar rashly and negligently, without observing the traffic rules, going ahead of the jeep, suddenly took a turn towards the left side from in front of the jeep without giving indications in that regard. Resultantly, the jeep struck against the tractor and turned turtle, as a result of which Raj Pal (claimant) suffered injuries, whereas, the tractor driver fled away from the spot. As an aftermath of the accident, the claimant having suffered the injuries filed the claim petition, which was contested by the respondents, alleging that no accident took place for the fault on the part of Raj Kumar – driver. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the accident in question took place on account of the rash or negligent driving of Tractor No.HR-10A/9813 by its driver Raj Kumar – respondent No.1, which is owned by Ram Phal, respondent No.2, and whether the claimant Raj Pal suffered serious injuries in the accident in question? OPR FAO No.1536 of 1999(O&M) [ 3 ] 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Relief.” The Tribunal after scrutinising the evidence reached the conclusion that the accident took place on account of the negligent driving of Raj Kumar – respondent. Consequently, it awarded compensation to the claimant against respondents Ramphal and Raj Kumar. No claim was awarded against the Insurance Company as the tractor was not insured. Swaran Singh – Constable, while appearing as PW2 corroborated the version of the claimant and categorically stated that respondent Raj Kumar took the turn towards his left, without giving any signal, as a result of which the accident occurred. Copy of the FIR (Ex.P17) recorded on the same day at 10.15 a.m. further supports the version of the claimant. It clearly depicts that the tractor driver suddenly took a turn without giving any signal for the vehicles coming at its back, therefore, the accident occurred. No plausible evidence to the contrary was led by the owner and driver of the vehicle in order to rebut the evidence of the claimant has been brought on record. They even did not lodge the counter First Information Report accusing the jeep driver. Narinder Singh (RW4), a constable from the office of Superintendent of Police has categorically stated that no complaint of Raj Kumar – respondent was received in the office during the months of August and September, 1996, explaining the manner of the accident. In FAO No.1536 of 1999(O&M) [ 4 ] such circumstances, it is held that the accident took place on account of the fault on the part of the tractor driver i.e. Raj Kumar – respondent. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant suffered fracture of left hip, left shoulder as well as of left pelvis. He remain admitted in Bharat Hospital, Sonepat upto 30.9.1996 i.e, for 26 days. It is pleaded that nothing has been awarded to him on account of the hospitalisation and for diminishing his status in the society. The claimant has led evidence to the effect that he incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs.12,560/-. However, there is no evidence depicting any pecuniary loss to him. He being a Government employee, must have been reimbursed the medical expenses by his employer. He himself has stated that he is not an income tax assessee, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be quite fair and reasonable, which needs not be enhanced. Resultantly, both the appeals are dismissed. September 02, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE