LEKH RAJ Vs. KIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOTOR Accident claims Tribunal, Patiala vide award dated January 4, 1984 dismissed the claim petition filed by Lekh Raj and Ors. for the grant of compensation on account of the death of Vijay Kumar occurred in a Motor Vehicles Accident on August 6, 1979, Vijay Kumar son of Lekh Raj appellant on the day of the accident had gone to see a cinema Show. While he was returning during the night, he was fatally hit by Bus No. PNO-1900, which was driven rashly and negligently. Within a few minutes of the accident, Vijay Kumar died on the spot. His parents Lekh Raj and Sita Kumari and his brothers, and sisters, other claimants, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Vijay Kumar was employed with Satish Kumar Bansal of Moga Engineering Works, Patiala and getting Rs. 300/- per mensem. FIR No. 43 dated August 6, 1979 was lodged with respect to the accident The claim was contested on behalf of Kirpal Singh and Roor Singh, respondents Nos. 1 and 2, by filing a written statement. The New India Assurance Company, respondent No. 3 filed a separate written statement whereas respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed a separate statement. Respondent No. 6 yet filed a separate written statement. All the respondents leaving apart the Insurance Company took the stand that Kirpal Singh was not the owner of the truck. However, they denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. They also denied that the deceased was employed. The Insurance Company took up the stand that the truck was not insured and an alternative plea was also taken that the person driving the truck (Roor Singh), did not possess any valid licence. On the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(2.) ISSUE No. 1. A.W. 4 Dharampal and A.W. 8 Bhupinder Kumar deposed about the manner in which the accident took place resulting in causing the death of Vijay Kumar. Their evidence did not find favour with the Tribunal as they did not inform the police about the accident. In my view, on that ground alone, their evidence could not be discarded. Their evidence finds corroboration from other evidence, produced in the case which is in the form of photographs. These photographs otherwise establish the negligence of driver of the truck resulting in the accident, particularly photograph, Exhibit A. 5 clearly shows that the accident took place on the road itself as the cycle is shown lying in the road itself. Exhibits A. 11 and A. 12 are the photographs of the ill-fated bus. Photograph, Exhibit A. 11,clearly shows damage towards the left side front of the bus which was involved in the accident. The fact that Vijay Kumar died on account of the injuries suffered is established from the post-mortem report, Exhibit A. 1. According to PW 1 Dr. Bir Bhan Singla, who conducted post-mortemon the dead body of Vijay Kumar, the injury suffered could be the result of motor vehicle accident. A.W. 2 Jagdev Singh, Photographer of the C.I.A. Staff, deposed about the photographs, Exhibits A. 10 to A. 12. At already Noticed, it was Lekh Ram A.W. 3 who got the first information report registered at the Police Station. He was at his house when he was informed of the accident and he reported the same. A.W. 7 A.S.I. Prem Singh investigated the criminal case. He inspected the spot, got the post-mortem conducted on the dead body. He also took into possession the ill-fated bus No. PNO 1900 of Nirankar Bus Service, Patiala as deposed to by A.W. 7 A.S.I. Prem Singh, and got the same photographed. During cross-examination he stated that Dharampal and Bhupinder Kumar witnesses told him the name of the bus driver to be Roor Singh and he recorded their statements. No evidence was produced by the respondents to rebut the evidence produced by the claimants. From the evidence produced by the claimants, no manner of doubt is left that Vijay died on account of the accident caused with Bus No. PNO 1900. The two witnesses of the occurrence Dharampal and Bhupinder Kumar narrated the manner of the accident, which shows that it was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by Roor Singh. They gave statement to the Investigating Officer during investigation of the criminal case. Merely on the ground that they did not go straight away to the Police Station to report is not enough to discard their evidence. Finding of the Tribunal under issue No. 1, is, therefore, reversed and the issue is decided in favour of the claimants holding that Vijay Kumar died on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PNO-1900 by Roor Singh respondent.

(3.) SINCE the bus was not insured, the liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company. Furthermore, Roor Singh appeared as R.W. 2 and stated that he did not know driving and did not possess any driving licence for heavy motor vehicle. That being the position, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable for the amount of compensation being assessed.