INDER MOHINI Vs. LAKHVINDER PAL SINGH DUGGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur, dismissing the claim petition filed by the petitioners on the ground that the same is not maintainable.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the petitioners in the claim/petition the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (Maruti Van) bearing No. HNE 53 by its driver. It was pleaded in the petition that respondent No. 1 could not control and stop the vehicle which came in between the cross firing going on between the police and the terrorist near village Bugran District Ferozepur at about 8. 00 P. M. as a result of which Harpreet Singh died at the spot on account of the injuries sustained in the said accident. The petition was contested by the respondents apart from other grounds also on the ground of jurisdiction According to the respondents, Harpreet Singh died on account of fire-arm injuries and thus the petitioners were stated to be not entitled to compensation. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without framing any issues or allowing any opportunity to the petitioners to prove the averments made in the claim petition, dismissed the claim petition only on the ground that death of Harpreet Singh took place on account of fire arm injuries received by him in cross-fire exchanged between security forces and terriorist and in this view of the matter death of Harpreet Singh had taken place independently from use of Maruti Van.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur cannot be sustained. The claimants in their petition have made a clear averment that on account of negligence and rash driving of the driver, the vehicle could not be stopped with the result that it came within the rang of cross-fire and this is how the use of the vehicle resulted in the death of Harpreet Singh. In case the claimants can prove this averment, then certainly the petition is maintainable and the Tribunal, has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition. Learned counsel for the claimants made reference to Shivji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More), A. I. R. 1991 S. C. 1769. Union of India v. Sushila Devi, 1990 A. C. J. 1 (All.) as well as unreported judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court, F. A. O. ; (M. V. A.) 194 of 1989 decided on 29. 10. 1990 (H. R. T. C and Ors. v. Om Parkash, F. A. O. 194 of 1989 (H. P) to contend that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the petition was not maintainable. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners certainly help the claimants in case they can prove that the use of the motor vehicle resulted in the death of the deceased. This matter can be determined only if the parties are allowed to lead evidence.