High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 07 P&H CK 0121

Kuldeep Singh vs Gulhari and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 17 July 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajan Gupta, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
FAO No. 4028 of 2012 (O and M)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 344 words

Rajan Gupta, J.—Present appeal has been preferred by owner of the offending vehicle impugning the award delivered by tribunal fastening liability on him for payment of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the award passed by court below primarily on the ground that in the investigation conducted by police, a cancellation report was submitted. The accident thus becomes doubtful and findings arrived at by the tribunal need to be set-aside.

2.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. It appears that on 15.02.2009, deceased Gaya Ram along with another person was going to village Talania on a motorcycle. When they reached near RR Food Corner, a car bearing no PB-11-YT-9433 struck the motorcycle. In the accident, both driver and pillion rider died. A claim petition was preferred by legal heirs demanding compensation of Rs. 20.00 lacs. Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. A plea was taken before the tribunal that in the investigation conducted police had come to the conclusion that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle that struck a wandering cow. This plea was, however, disbelieved by the tribunal. Relying on the evidence of witness Raja Karan, tribunal held that both the deceased had lost their lives in the accident caused by offending car. In my considered view reliance placed before this court on the report submitted by the investigating agency pursuant to FIR is misconceived. The evidence of the concerned Inspector was analyzed by the court below. It came to the conclusion that Inspector had failed to join eye-witness Raj Karan in the investigation wherein the finding was given that accident was caused due to hitting of motorcycle with a wandering cow. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any defect with the appreciation of evidence. No other point has been urged. Thus, no interference in the findings arrived at by the tribunal is warranted. Appeal is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.