UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. Vs. RAJ BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the insurer of offending bearing registration No.HR46D-6855, against the award dtd. 30/5/2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa, whereby the appellant herein along respondents No.3 and 4 i.e. driver and owner of said vehicle, have been jointly and severally amount of compensation to the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. parents, on account of death of their son Arvind Kumar in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 9/8/2020.

(2.) Briefly stated, the claimants filed a claim pe Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of death of their son Arvind Kumar on the ground that on at about 1:30 AM, he (deceased) along with his friend Pat Ram IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.4808 of 2023 (O&M) Reserved on: 27/5/2024 Pronounced on: 31/5/2024 .... Appellant .... Respondents GURBIR SINGH V. Ramswaroop, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2/claimants. Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Arman Goyal, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. Present appeal has been filed by the insurer of offending 6855, against the award dtd. 30/5/2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa, whereby the appellant herein along respondents No.3 and 4 i.e. driver and owner of said vehicle, have been jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. parents, on account of death of their son Arvind Kumar in a motor vehicle Briefly stated, the claimants filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of death of their son Arvind Kumar on the ground that on , he (deceased) along with his friend Pat Ram Present appeal has been filed by the insurer of offending 6855, against the award dtd. 30/5/2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa, whereby the appellant herein along respondents No.3 and 4 i.e. driver and held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. parents, on account of death of their son Arvind Kumar in a motor vehicle tition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of death of their son Arvind Kumar on the ground that on was coming to their house at Keharwala and Bahia in a car bearing registration No.HR16-K-9688. Said car was being driven by Pat Ram and Arvind Kumar was sitting on front seat. At about 2:20 AM, when they reached near Delux Hotel, Jhajjar-Gurgaon Road, in the area of Village Norangpur, a Canter/Truck bearing registration No.HR46D-6855 was standing on white strip in the middle of the road without any dipper lights/back lights (red) or any type of indication. It was full dark and Pat Ram could not see said truck due to flash lights/reflexion and car struck behind one portion of the Canter. As a result of accident, Arvind Kumar received serious injuries. Respondent No.3-driver of Canter/truck alighted from the truck and stopped there for some time. Arvind Kumar was brought to G.H., Jhajjar, where he was declared dead due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. On the statement of Pat Ram, FIR No.248, dtd. 9/8/2020 under Ss. 283, 304-A of IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar, Jhajjar.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has argued that in the claim petition, car driver, namely, Pat Ram was not impleaded as party and its application for impleading said car driver was dismissed by the Tribunal without any reason. From the entire evidence of PW2-Pat Ram and PW-5 Investigating Officer, Mr. Jagdeep Kumar, ASI, who admitted in cross-examination that truck was parked on the corner of the road which was kacha portion, as shown in the site plan Ex.P14 and Ex.R1, it is clear that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Pat Ram, driver of the car himself, but the Tribunal has wrongly held the driver of Canter/truck liable for the accident. Mere registration of FIR and filing of charge-sheet does not prove negligence as the Tribunal is required to act upon the evidence so adduced before it. Reliance is placed on Rudramani Versus Kulbir Singh, 2016(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1446. The deceased had joined his job only two days prior to the date of accident and the learned Tribunal has wrongly took his income as Rs.12,426.00 per month.