LAKHU SINGH Vs. UDAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of award dated 3. 9. 1987 passed by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal')whereby the claim petition preferred by the claimants-appellants has been dismissed.

(2.) FACTUAL background as emerges from the record of the case is that one Bijender alias Vijay Pal met with accident at bus stand at village Manesar with Maruti van bearing No. DID 2632. It is alleged in the petition that offending vehicle was driven by Uday Singh in a rash and negligent manner. Vehicle was in a high speed and without blowing any horn, hit the victim who was standing on his own side. Driver took away the victim in the said Maruti van on the pretext of getting him treated. In view of the fact that there was no space in the vehicle, no other person boarded the vehicle. It was further alleged that the body of the deceased was recovered somewhere near Dharuhera on 6/7. 12. 1985, i. e. , four days after the said accident. An F. I. R. was lodged by Lakhu Singh, the father of the deceased wherein the registration number of the van was also mentioned. The police of P. S. Sadar, Gurgaon investigated the case and filed a charge-sheet in the competent court. At the time of passing of the impugned award, the accused was facing trial. On the basis of the evidence led, the tribunal returned a finding that claimants-appellants have failed to establish the accident. Though the finding on the issue No. 1 was against the appellants-claimants, however, the Claims Tribunal proceeded to decide other issue and also determined the compensation payable to the claimants. According to the Tribunal, the dependency of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 300 per month and keeping in view the age of the deceased as 17 years and those of the parents as 45 and 40 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 and awarded compensation of Rs. 57,600 (Rs. 300 x 12 x 16 ). While deciding the issue No. 6, the tribunal has held that the owner of the vehicle, namely, S. C. Jain has sold the vehicle and thus, the insurance company has no liability, in view of the breach of contract of the insurance. As a result, the claim petition came to the dismissed vide the impugned award.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed glaring illegality in dismissing the claim petition. This opinion is based on the following circumstances: while considering the issue No. 1, the tribunal has noticed the evidence of PW 4, Munni, who deposed that he used to sell pakoras on rehri at the Bus Stand, Manesar at the time of the accident and stated that a Maruti van bearing No. DID 2632 came from Gurgaon side at a very fast speed, in a rash and negligent manner and hit Vijay pal. He further stated that the driver of the vehicle took away Vijay Pal in an injured condition for treatment in the hospital. The other witness of the occurrence is the father of the deceased, Lakhu Singh who stated that he and the deceased were standing together at the Manesar Bus Stand when the occurrence took place. He has also given the version of the occurrence and categorically stated that Maruti van hit the deceased. The Tribunal has appreciated the evidence as if it was holding a criminal trial and the claimants were required to establish the occurrence beyond any shadow of doubt. It is now settled position of law that while considering a claim petition, the tribunal is required to hold an enquiry and to not act as a criminal court so as to find whether the claimants have established the occurrence beyond any shadow of doubt. In the enquiry, if there is prima facie evidence of the occurrence, there is no reason to disbelieve such an evidence. The statements of Lakhu Singh and PW 4, Munni, coupled with the facts of registration of f. I. R. and trial of the accused in a criminal court, are sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the accident had taken place. The findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are totally erroneous and not sustainable in law. The evidence clearly establishes that the driver of Maruti van No. DID 2632 caused the accident by hitting the deceased vijay Pal. The findings on issue No. 1 are accordingly set aside and reversed. It is thus concluded that Maruti van above-mentioned hit the deceased Vijay Pal while driving in a rash and negligent manner.