STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SUNIL KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal of the respondent -State challenging the consolidated award dated 24.9.1998 passed in a bunch of claim petitions concerning the same very accident. The present appeal pertains to MACT case No.106 of 1995 titled as Sunil Kumar Jain and another vs. State of Punjab and another pertaining to grant of compensation to the injured -claimants regarding injuries sustained by them, while the family was going in a car bearing registration No.HR01 -A -0253 being driven by their driver Karamjit and on 17.2.1995 around 5 p.m. met with an accident in the area of Pipli near Kurukshetra.

(2.) THE brief averments are that a truck was going and which was overtaken by the car and while the car was parallel to another truck going ahead of the first truck, a Gypsy vehicle bearing No.PB -08F -2270 being driven by respondent Jaswant Kumar came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the car of the claimants, resulting in injuries to the occupants. The learned counsel for the appellant at the very onset has contended that it was the driver of the car which was at fault and the findings pertaining to the accident returned by the Tribunal were palpably incorrect and which has been controverted on behalf of the respondents by Mr. Sanjay Jain. Appreciating the same, it was on the statement of the occupant of the car Mr. A.K. Jain that an FIR was registered against the driver of the gypsy vehicle pertaining to this accident. The driver who is contesting the litigation has stepped into the witness box to testify that it was due to the fault of the car driver the accident has taken place. Though, on account of destruction of original records not much evidence is available on the file, however, from the remnants whatever are available to this Court, this testimony of RW1 Jawant Kumar depicts that he admits that an accident has taken place but his claim as has sought to be put forth on behalf of the appellant is not substantiated to show that he has been falsely implicated. There is no corroboration to this stand by any independent means.

(3.) RATHER the testimony of this driver shows that his stand in the written reply and before the Court as RW1 are at much variance and are self contradictory which led to the Tribunal holding him to be at fault. Together with the fact that there is proven evidence that the driver of the jeep was facing criminal charges and trial before the Court and in view of the law laid down in 'Keshub Mahindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1996 2 ACC 292' (SC) is prima facie culpable for causing this accident and, therefore, findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1 needs to be upheld.