Parminder Singh vs Paramjit Kaur

Rakesh Garg, J.—As per the averments made, respondents No. 1 to 7 filed MACT Case No. 75 of 19.10.2010 before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangrur against the appellant as also against respondents No. 8 and 9, claiming compensation on account of the death of Gurcharan Singh, who was occupant of a Car bearing registration No. CH01Y-1174, which was owned and being driven by respondent No. 9 and was duly insured with respondent No. 8. According to the claimants, an accident took place near Bhiana Chowk on Moga-Barnala road between the aforesaid car and a motorcycle bearing registration No. PB29E-8592 owned and being driven by the appellant at the time of accident. In the claim petition, the claimants alleged that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the appellant, which was being driven at a very high speed and which had struck with the Maruti Car due to which the car struck in a tree standing on the side of the road and occupants of the car including Gurcharan Singh suffered multiple grievous injuries and later-on Gurcharan Singh was declared dead.

The claim petition was contested by the appellant admitting the accident, however, denying the manner in which the accident is alleged to have taken place by the claimants. According to the appellant, in the said accident he along with his mother also suffered injuries and it was the Maruti car bearing registration No. CH01Y-1174, which had struck wrongly with the motorcycle, whereas he was going on his correct side.

However, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangrur, on the basis of evidence on record, returned a finding that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant. It was further found that the motorcycle was not insured and thus, the appellant was held liable to make payment of the compensation as determined vide impugned Award dated 09.09.2013.

The award has been challenged by the appellant on the ground that in another claim petition i.e. MACT Case No. 12 of 25.05.2011 decided on 04.10.2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Moga, which was filed by him claiming compensation against respondents No. 8 and 9 for the injuries suffered by him arising out of the same accident; a finding was recorded to the effect that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruti Car bearing registration No. CH01Y-1174, and thus, the owner/insurer of the said Car were liable to pay compensation to the appellant, and in view of the aforesaid fact, the findings recorded in the instant case cannot be sustained as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Moga has already recorded its findings on the same accident in his favour.

The argument, as raised, is highly misconceived and is liable to be rejected. At this stage, it may be noticed that the claim petition i.e. MACT Case No. 12 of 25.05.2011 was filed by the appellant on 20.03.2010 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Moga and the same was decided on 04.10.2012; whereas the instant claim petition was filed by the respondents No. 1 to 7 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangrur on 19.10.2010 and the same was decided on 09.09.2013. Despite the fact that the instant petition was pending and was decided after about 11 months of the decision of the MACT Case No. 12 of 25.05.2011 filed by the appellant, no effort was made by him to bring the said Award on record of the case in support of his evidence before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangrur.

Not only this, it could not be disputed that even in the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant in the instant claim petition i.e. MACT Case No. 75 of 19.10.2010, no such objection with regard to pendency of his claim petition at Moga was raised. In fact, it was imperative upon the appellant, on receiving of summons in the instant case and while filing his written statement, to disclose all the facts which are necessary and relevant for effective adjudication between the parties. It could not be disputed before this Court that the claim petition was field by the appellant himself at Moga on 20.03.2010, whereas he has filed written statement in the instant case at a much later stage. The appellant himself has allowed both the Tribunals to continue with the proceedings and has not made any effort to get both these petitions clubbed together by disclosing the aforesaid facts and in view of the aforesaid concealment of necessary facts, now the appellant cannot take the benefit of his own wrong and this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned Award.

Dismissed.