LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-630

MAYA DEVI AND ORS. Vs. JAGDISH RAI

Decided On May 30, 2014
Maya Devi And Ors. Appellant
V/S
JAGDISH RAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.01.1997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the claim petition of the appellant has been dismissed. The case as set up in the claim petition was that on 04.01.1992, the tractor of deceased Raghbir Singh developed some problem. He went to Abohar in connection with its repair and contacted Kashmiri Lal, who was having a workshop near Police Station Abohar Sadar. The deceased along with Kashmiri Lal went to village Shivani and thereafter proceeded to Fazilka to purchase the tractor parts. They were on motorcycle bearing Registration No. PJF-4747 and when they reached near octroi post a truck bearing registration No. DEL 2870 came from behind and hit the motorcycle resulting in injuries to Kashmiri Lal and Raghbir Singh (since deceased). Raghbir Singh suffered multiple injuries and was initially admitted to Civil Hospital Fazilka from where he was referred to CMC, Ludhiana. He died on 26.01.1992. FIR No. 1 dated 04.01.1992 was registered at the instance of Kashmiri Lal at Police Station City Fazilka.

(2.) The appellants being the legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petition. In support of their claim, the claimants examined AW-1 Devinder Kumar son of the deceased, AW-2 MHC Harjit Singh, who proved copy of the FIR under Sections 279/338 of IPC registered at Police Station City Fazilka, AW-3 Janak Raj Chawla Record Keeper, Sessions Record Room Ferozepur who proved copy of the statement of Kashmiri Lal (Ex. A-2) whereby he entered into a compromise with respondents after accepting Rs. 20,000/-. AW-3 also proved copy of the order dated 30.08.1995 (Ex. A-3) passed by the Tribunal, whereby the claim petition filed by Kashmiri Lal was dismissed as withdrawn on account of compromise. In addition to the above, the claimants had also summoned Dr. G.S. Randhawa, CMC Ludhiana along with the record/postmortem report of the deceased and Kashmiri Lal-eye witness and the person, who was driving the motorcycle. The Tribunal vide order dated 27.01.1997 closed the evidence of the claimants/appellants under Order 17 Rule 3 and Section 35(b) of the CPC and proceeded to dispose of the claim petition.

(3.) The Tribunal held that the appellants had only examined one of the claimants Devinder Kumar, who was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. It further held that merely registration of FIR is not sufficient to fix liability of the respondents, which could only be proved by direct evidence. It further held that the compromise entered into by Kashmiri Lal with the respondents would also not prove the factum of rashness and negligence of respondent No. 1 especially when neither Kashmiri Lal nor the respondents had appeared before the Tribunal. Resultantly, the claim petition was dismissed.