FAO No.2680 of 2007(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.2680 of 2007(O&M) Decided on : September 18, 2009 National Insurance Company Limited ... Appellant VERSUS Ranbir and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr.R.C.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company. Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.1 to 3 - claimants. Mr.S.P.Chahar, Advocate for respondent No.4 – owner of the offending vehicle. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The appellant - National Insurance Company Limited (herein referred as the appellant) has assailed the award dated 11.5.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.7.68 lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants – respondents No.1 to 3 (herein referred as the claimants) and against the appellant as well as respondent No.4 – driver- cum-owner of the offending vehicle i.e. TATA Spacio bearing Reg.No.HR14B-5686 (herein referred as respondent No.4.). FAO No.2680 of 2007(O&M) [ 2 ] Brief resume of facts is that on 20.11.2005, Pardeep (since deceased) along with his wife Guddi was travelling in an auto-rickshaw (three-wheeler) bearing Reg.No.HR46B-1183 from his native village Mungan to village Siwana in order to meet his in-laws. When they reached near village Chimani, respondent No.4 while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently came from the opposite direction and struck against the auto-rickshaw, whereupon, both Pardeep and Guddi suffered injuries. Consequently, they were shifted to PGIMS, Rohtak, where they were medico-legally examined. Later on, they were referred to Base Hospital, Delhi, where, Pardeep breathed his last on 10.12.2005. After ascertaining the whereabouts of the driver of the offending vehicle, Azad Singh informed about the incident to the police, whereupon, the FIR was registered. The claimants while submitting on the quantum of compensation, disclosed that Pardeep was 25 years old and was serving in the military, from where, he was drawing salary of Rs.8000/- per month. While denying the claim, respondent No.4 denied the accident and also pleaded that a false case was registered against him after 21 days of the alleged accident. The appellant Company in its separate written statement also denied the accident and pleaded about the collusion of respondent No.4 and the claimants. It also denied about the factum of age, profession and income of the deceased. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Tata Spacio Euro-II No.HR14B- FAO No.2680 of 2007(O&M) [ 3 ] 5686 by Tejbir alias Tejvir, respondent No.1? OPP 2. Whether Pardeep son of Ranbir died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident in question, if so, to what amount of compensation and from whom? OPP 3. Whether Tejbir alias Tejvir, respondent No.1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effect? OPR 4. Relief.” On 7.10.2006, the following additional issue was also framed:- “2A. Whether the petitioners have colluded with respondent No.1 in filing the present claim petition, as alleged? OPR-2” It may be noticed that the application filed by the appellant under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was rejected and no revision against the said order was filed. After appreciating the evidence of both the parties, the Tribunal while holding respondent No.4 responsible for rash and negligent driving, accepted the claim petition and awarded the amount, as referred to above. In order to assail the occurrence, the appellant has raised the contention that no such accident took place and the belated First Information Report is the result of concoction and after-thought. In order to adjudicate over the issue, it is relevant to scrutinise the evidence. The star witness to the case is Guddi (PW1), who being a stamped witness has stated that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent act of respondent No.4. She has given the minute details of the accident while FAO No.2680 of 2007(O&M) [ 4 ] deposing that after the accident, Pardeep, her husband was shifted to PGIMS, Rohtak from where, he was shifted to Base Hospital, Delhi, where he died after 21 days. The second important witness to the occurrence is Azad Singh (PW3), the author of the FIR. He also being an eye-witness has supported the statement of Guddi in all minute details. As a matter of fact, the appellant has tried to place reliance upon the statement of Ajit (PW2). His testimony has to be discarded as he was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. He reached the place after the occurrence, therefore, he was not supposed to get recorded the DDR correctly as he did not know about the factual position. At the same time, we have no reason to discard the testimonies of Azad Singh as well as Guddi. It is admitted position that the accident had taken place on 20.11.2005 at about 10.00 PM in the area of village Chimani. The deceased was firstly taken to the PGIMS, Rohtak by Ajit Singh (PW2), where he was medico legally examined at 2.00 PM. Thereafter, he was referred to Base Hospital, Delhi, where he was again medico legally examined at 9.00 PM on the same day. He was taken to the Base Hospital by his wife Guddi, who disclosed to the doctor that they were travelling in a three-wheeler, which had collided with a Sumo, coming from the opposite direction. This fact was not brought to the notice of the police by Hospital Authorities. However, on 21.11.2005, when the police officials reached Base Hospital, Azad Singh (PW3), father-in-law of the deceased was found present there and the police officials without considering that he had not witnessed the accident, recorded his statement (Ex.R1) to the effect that the accident took FAO No.2680 of 2007(O&M) [ 5 ] place due to the severance of the wheels of the three-wheeler. The police, thereafter, became silent. The police again visited the Hospital on 10.12.2005 after the death of Pardeep and recorded the statement of Ranbir Singh (Ex.P6), wherein, it was stated by him that the Tata Sumo had collided with the three-wheeler occupied by Pardeep (since deceased) and his wife Guddi. Azad Singh (PW3) then contacted Ajit Singh (PW2) to know the whereabouts of the driver of the Tata Sumo and the registration number of the said vehicle and after having come to know about the same, he got registered the FIR (Ex.R1) against respondent No.4 at Police Station, Beri on 11.12.2005, wherein, it was stated that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo jeep bearing Reg.No.HR14B-5685 by respondent No.4. The matter was, thereafter investigated by the police and respondent No.4 was challaned by the police. It clearly shows that the claimants have not colluded with respondent NO.4 while filing the claim petition. Had they colluded with respondent No.4, then he would not have denied the accident while filing the written statement. Mere fact that he has admitted the accident while appearing in the witness box as RW1 is no ground to assume that the claimants have colluded with him, because while filing the written statement, he was under the impression that he could avoid his liability by denying the accident, but when he was challaned by the police and was made to face trial, he came to know that he would not succeed in avoiding his involvement, in the accident. It is a settled law that the statement on oath before the Court deserves more credence than the pleas taken in the written statement, which FAO No.2680 of 2007(O&M) [ 6 ] are not on solemn affirmation. Even otherwise also, the statement made by Guddi (PW1) and Azad (PW3) when scrutinised minutely, it would emerge that the first endeavor of the witnesses was to save the life of the injured. They remained involved throughout in the hospital and, therefore, their failure to get the case registered for a period from 20.11.2005 to 10.12.2005 does not seem unnatural; when it was stated by the wife of the deceased while appearing before the doctor on the day of the accident that Tata Sumo had caused the accident, it was the duty of the Hospital Authorities also to inform the police to take immediate action. Since the accident in question had taken place in the area of village Chimani within the jurisdiction of Police Station Beri, District Jhajjar, the police at Delhi took the matter lighly and ignored to ascertain the true facts. They even did not take pains to inform the concerned police station of the area, where the accident had taken place. No action whatsoever was initiated by the Delhi Police even after recording the supplementary statement of Azad Singh and Ranbir Singh on 10.12.2005 which are Exhibits P5 and P6 respectively, on the record and, therefore, Azad (PW3) had to approach the police of Police Station Beri to get the case registered. Since the name of the eye witness of the accident was available in the MLR, therefore, Azad after ascertaining the true facts from Ajit (PW2) got registered the criminal case against respondent No.4. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I believe that the occurrence had taken place on account of the rash and negligent act of respondent No.4 and the accident stands duly proved and the claim petition is not the result of collusion. FAO No.2680 of 2007(O&M) [ 7 ] Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, regarding which a plea has been set up by the appellant, Pardeep (since deceased) was a military personnel and was earning Rs.8309/-, as depicted from his salary certificate (Mark-A). He was 25 years of age. In such circumstances, the Tribunal appears to have assessed his dependency at Rs.4000/- on the lower side, as the military personnel are provided boarding and lodging by the Government, but I am reluctant to interfere with the same. The deceased also remained admitted in the hospital for 21 days before he died. Thus, in the circumstances, the Tribunal was not in any way at fault in applying the multiplier of 16 in the present case. Thus, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. September 18, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE