FAO No. 4491 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4491 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.02.2010 Tarsem Kumar and another ....Appellants Versus Satbir Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: -Mr. Rakesh Bakshi, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ravinder Malik Ravi, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 21118-CII of 2009 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved for condoning the delay of 46 days in filing the appeal. It has been averred in the application, that due to communication gap between the appellants and their counsel, the appeal could not be filed in time. It is also averred that some time was taken to raise Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to file the appeal. Consequently, the delay of 46 days occurred. The application is supported by an affidavit. No reply has been filed. The averments made go unrebutted. For the reasons stated, the CM is allowed and the delay of 46 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM No. 21119-CII of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application, CM is allowed and delay of 58 days in refiling the appeal condoned. FAO No. 4491 of 2009 (O&M) -2- FAO No. 4491 of 2009 This appeal by the owner and driver is directed against the award dated 18.2.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri, vide which the claim petition filed by the respondent/claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, stands partly allowed. The claimants claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the pleadings that on 28.3.2006, the claimant Satbir Singh had come to village Nachron to meet his sister, who was married to petitioner-Amar Singh. The claimant at about 9.00 a.m. along with one Sanjay Chauhan went to Radaur by motorcycle bearing No. HR-02G-2381 of Amar Singh for getting medicines for a minor child, who was also with them. At about 12.00 noon, when they were coming back to village Nachron and after crossing the bridge of West Yamuna Canal, had reached near T point, Kandrauli Road, a four wheeler bearing No. HR-56-0214 which was driven by respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent manner came from Jathlana side and hit their motorcycle in its front side. All the occupants of the motorcycle fell down. Satbir Singh, who was driving the motorcycle at that time, sustained injuries including fractures. The four wheeler was stopped and on asking the driver, he disclosed his name as Satbir Singh, and thereafter injured was taken to Saini Hospital, Radaur, and then to Gaba Hospital. Amar Singh claimed damages on account of damage to the motorcycle, whereas the claimant also claimed compensation for the injuries suffered. The accident was admitted. However, the stand taken by the appellant/respondents was that the accident had occurred due to rash FAO No. 4491 of 2009 (O&M) -3- and negligent driving of the motorcycle. The case set up was, that four wheeler was already lying turtle on the road and it was the claimant who hit in its backside, as such the appellant/respondents were not liable to pay any compensation. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: - “1. Whether the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of four wheeler No. HR-56-0214 by respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Relief.” On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the four wheeler No. HR-56-0214, which was driven by respondent No.1. Under issue No.2, the claimant was held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.1,23,400/- (Rupees one lac twenty three thousand and four hundred only) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained in law, as it is contrary to the evidence on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was, that the photographs placed on record, would show that truck was already lying turtle when the motorcycle hit it from the backside. The learned Tribunal committed an error in deciding issue No.1 against the appellants. FAO No. 4491 of 2009 (O&M) -4- This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted, as in support of this plea the appellants had examined Kala RW1, who supported the case set up by the appellants, but in the cross-examination admitted that he had reached the spot after about 15 minutes of the accident. The learned Tribunal did not believe the deposition of Kala in support of the case. The learned Tribunal also took note of the fact that Balbir Singh, Driver, who was the best witness being the driver of the truck, was not produced by the appellants in support of the case. The version given by the claimant was accepted on appreciation of evidence. The findings, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the compensation awarded is on the higher side, as the learned Tribunal took into consideration, the bills which were, in fact, falsely prepared by the claimant. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Keeping in view the injuries suffered, the treatment undertaken and the pain and sufferings undergone by the claimant, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. Finding no merit in this appeal, it is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 02, 2010 R.S.