BALWINDER KAUR Vs. GURDEV SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNSUCCESSFUL claimant - appellant has preferred the instant appeal feeling aggrieved against Award dated May 06, 2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala (for brevity, 'Tribunal') whereby the claim petition preferred by her was dismissed solely on the ground that she has failed to prove that Joginder Singh, her husband, died in a motor vehicular accident, alleged to have occurred on April 14, 2008 involving tractor No. PB -41 -B -9619 being driven by Gurdev Singh, respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that Joginder Singh met with an accident with the tractor in question being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner while he (Joginder Singh) was standing on the left side of the road. Joginder Singh sustained multiple injuries as a result of which he breathed his last at the spot. The accident was witnessed by Darshan Singh and Amrik Singh who were present at the spot.

(3.) THE appellants have placed and proved on record various documents including report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., as well as chargesheet against Sarban Lal but the learned Tribunal has wrongly observed that the alleged accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. Moreover, respondent No. 1 has also admitted before the learned Tribunal that the tractor is owned by him, however, he further stated that the tractor was being driven by Sarban Lal on April 14, 2008 who has been employed by him as driver. The observation made by the Tribunal that tractor was not being driven by Gurdev Singh is absolutely wrong. Infact, the appellant - claimant has examined Amrik Singh as AW -2 who is one of the eye -witnesses and he has specifically attributed the rashness and negligence on the part of respondent No. 1, Gurdev Singh and further, that Joginder Singh died due to injuries sustained by him involving the offending tractor. But, learned Tribunal has ignored his testimony without any cogent and plausible reason. So, the impugned award is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside by way of acceptance of the instant appeal, and consequently, the claimant is entitled to just and adequate compensation.