Tehal Singh alias Tehlu vs Jiya Lal and others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.

Civil Misc. No. 12754-C-II of 2013

For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 5 days in filing this appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

Main Appeal.

This is an appeal brought by Tehal Singh alias Tehlu, the driver of the combine harvester bearing registration No. PB-63-9498 [hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle"] against the award dated 3.1.2013 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for short, "the Tribunal"). Jiya Lal and Melo Devi, on the death of their son Jaminder in a roadside accident that took place on 5.4.2011 had brought the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 10.00 lacs, learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,94,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant on the death of their son. The liability has been held to be of Tehal Singh and his co-respondent Pavitar Singh, owner of the offending vehicle because there was no insurance company to indemnify them in the matter of payment of the award money. The facts necessary to decide this appeal can be reproduced as under:

On 5.4.2011, Jaminder had gone to village Bighana on motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-07-9293. He left the village Bighana at about 4.30 PM to come to his village Chuharmajra. Om Parkash was riding the pillion of his motorcycle. Sushil Kumar and Anil were accompanying him on a separate motorcycle. They were following the motorcycle of Jaminder. At about 6.00 PM, when the deceased was near the Bajrang brick-kiln, a combine harvester bearing registration No. PB-63-9498, the offending vehicle driven by respondent No. 1 at a very fast speed and in rash and negligent manner came from the side of Pundri and made a straight hit at the motorcycle of the deceased after coming to the wrong side of the road. The wheel of the offending vehicle went over the head of Jaminder who died at the spot.

The claim petition has been opposed by the respondents. They have denied any such accident to have taken place with their combine. According to them, a false FIR was lodged by the claimants in collusion with the local police with a view to get compensation.

After framing of issues and taking evidence, learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1 regarding the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle to be the cause of the accident in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. The finding on issue No. 1 alone is challenged in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the statement on the side of the claimants has been made by Sushil Kumar while on the other side Tehal Singh had made a statement. According to him, the statement of Sushil Kumar could not be believed to hold that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

While Tehal Singh is the person against whom the police has registered a case and he is facing trial in that case, there is no such blemish attracted to the statement of Sushil Kumar. Sushil Kumar is an independent witness who has stated on oath that the speed of the motorcycle of the deceased was 35-40 kms. per hour and he was moving the motorcycle on his extreme left side of the road. He has also stated while appearing as PW-2 that the offending vehicle had struck against the motorcycle of the deceased by coming to the wrong side of the road. There is no circumstance appearing on record in the light of which the statement of Sushil Kumar could be disbelieved. Learned Tribunal has, therefore, been fully justified in placing reliance on the statement of Sushil Kumar and recording a finding on issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. As no other point has been urged, I find the appeal to have failed and, consequently, dismiss the same.