Punjab-Haryana High Court
Saroj Rani And Ors vs Satnam Singh And Ors on 28 February, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-3360-2006
2006 (O&M) -1-
208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
FAO
FAO-3360-2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision ::-28.02.2025
Saroj Rani and Others ....Appellants
VERSUS
Satnam Singh and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. N.K.Manchanda,, Advocate for the appellant
appellants.
Mr. S.P.Garg,
S.P.Garg, Advocate for the respondent
respondent-Insurance Co.
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA,
SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants
claimants
against award dated 10.03.2006 passed in claim petition filed under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Panipat (for short, 'the Tribunal'),
), dismissed the claim petition of the
claimants.
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
2. Brief facts of the case are that 10.11.1998 at about 7.30 PM Pawan
Kumar son of Ram Parkash, was going
going on scooter near Patrol Pump in the area of
village Mudki. In the meanwhile, a bus No.PB
No.PB-11-H-1851
1851 belonging to
respondents No.2 and 3 came from the side of Amritsar which was being driven by
Satnam Singh respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. On reaching near
Pawan Kumar he struck the same against
against him, as a result of which Pawan Kumar
sustained multiple injuries. He was immediately shifted to Medical College &
Hospital, Faridkot, where he succumbed to the injuries.
TRIPTI SAINI 2025.03.12 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3360-2006 2006 (O&M) -2-
3. Upon notice, all the respondents appeared and filed their respective
written reply denying the impugned accident having been caused due to rash and
negligent driving of offending
offending bus by respondent No.1. According to their version,
on that day offending bus started from Mudki Bus stand for Faridkot at about
19.30 hours alongwith passengers.. About 1/2 kilometer from that place there is a
wine
ine Shop situated on the left side of the road. Respondent No.1 saw scooter
cooter
coming from that Wine Shop at high speed and on seeing it he stopped the bus by
applying brakes and bus stopped there and
and then and bus was still in low gears
gears. The
Scooterist/deceased, being drunk, lost control over the Scooter and dashed the
same into the stationary bus on left side
sid behind the front door, as a result he fell
down. According further to them, driver of the Sc
Scooter,
ooter, who was heavily drunk,
was picked up and was got admitted in the hospital by respondent No.1. The
impugned accident was alleged to have been caused due to rash and negligent
driving of Scooter by the deceased himself.
4. From the pleadings
pleading of the parties,
arties, the Tribunal framed the following
issues:-
1. Whether death of Pawan Kumar took place on
10.11.1998 at 7.30 PM in the area of village Mudki in road
accident cause due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.PB-
No.PB
11-H-1851
1851 by respondent No.1, aas alleged? If so its effect?
OPP.
2. Whether Saroj Rani and Pariya Gupta were dependents
upon deceased as alleged? If so, its effect? OP
OPP
TRIPTI SAINI
2025.03.12 10:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3360-2006
2006 (O&M) -3-
3. Whether Ram Parkash etc. claimants of consolidated
claim petition were also dependents on deceased? If so, its
effect?? OP Counter claimants.
4. If issue No.2 and 3 are proved, then to what amount of
compensation and from whom claimants and counter claimants
are entitled? OPA & OP CC.
5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction as alleged? OPR-2
OPR
and 3.
6. Whether claim petition
ition is bad for mis
mis-joinder
joinder & non-
non
joinder of necessary parties? OPR 2 and 3.
7. Relief.
5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on
record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition
petition. Hence the
claimants/appellants filed the present appeal for grant of compensation.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
6. Learned counsel for the claimants
claimants-appellants contends that claim
petition is dismissed on the ground that the deceased Pawan Kumar was under the
influence of liquor and it was due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased
himself that the accident took place. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be
allowed.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
respondent-Insurance
Insurance Company,
argues on the lines of the award and contends that the claim petition was rightly
dismissed by the learned Tribunal. He therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case.
TRIPTI SAINI cas 2025.03.12 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3360-2006 2006 (O&M) -4-
9. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:
under:-
“11
11. It was contended on behalf of the claimants that deceased
Pawan Kumar had died in the motor vehicular accident which was
caused due to rash and negligent driving of of fending Bus bearing
No.P11 H/1851 by Satnam Singh respondent No.1. According to
No.P11-H/1851them, a case FIR No. 117 dated 11, 11, 1998 was also registered
against him under sections 304-A/279
30 A/279 IPC wherein also the impugnedaccident was attributed to rash and nnegligent driving of offending Bus
Buby respondent No.1.
No.
12.. To lend colour to their submission
submissions, they have placed relianceon the testimonies made by Chiman Lal AW2 and Kashmiri Lal AW2
AWbesides the testimonies of Saroj Ran
Rani AWI and Ram Parkash AW7.
The claimants Saroj Rani AW1 as well as Ra
Ram Parkash AW7 in theirtestimonies made before the Court has also stated that the impugned
accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending
bus by respondent Chiman Lal AW2
AW2 Kashmiri Lal AW6 are stated tobe the eye witnesses of the accident, Chiman La
Lall AW2 was examinedby claimant Saroj
Saroj Rani, who by way of his affidavit Ex. AW2/A,
/A, hasstated that on that day he had seen the offending bus being driven by
Satnam Singh in rash and negligent manner. The said bus was coming
from Amritsar and was going to Faridkot. When the said bus reached
near petrol pump in the area of village Mudki then the same crushed,
crusheddeceased Pawan Kumar due to rash
rash and negligent dri
driving
ving of the sameby Satnam Singh,
Singh, as a result he sustained multiple injuries and was
TRIPTI SAINI
2025.03.12 10:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3360-2006
2006 (O&M) -5-removed to Shri Guru Gobind Singh Medical College & Hospital,
Faridkot where he succumbed to his injuries. To the same effect is the
testimony
estimony of Kashmiri Lal AW6,, who by way of his affidavit Ex.AW6/A has stated that on that day at about 7.30 p.m. deceased was
AW6/Astanding with his
h Scooter in front of a Dhab
Dhaba,
a, a bus came from Mudkiside and was going to Faridkot. The said bus was driven by Satnam
Singh respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, he brought
the bus to the wrong side and struck the ssame
ame against Scooter ofPawan Kumar, as a result he fell down and received injuries.
According to the learned counsel for the claimants, statements of both
the eye witnesses coupled with that of the claimant leaves no manner
of doubt that the impugned accid
accident was caused due to rash andnegligent driving of offending bus bbyy respondent No.1, as a result of
which Pawan Kumar had died.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No. 1. and other respondents, contended that simply on the bas
basis
is oforal assertions and oral testimonies of the witnesses examined by the
claimants it cannot be held that the impugned accident was caused
due to rash and negligent driving of offending bus by respondent No.1
when respondent No. I already stood acquitte
acquitted
d of the charge of rashand negligent driving framed against him in Criminal case
case. Myattention was drawn to a judgment dated 3.8.2004, copy Ex. RX, of
the Court of Shri Gurdev Singh, the then learned Addl. Sessions
Judge, Ferozepur by virtue of which he aacquitted respondent No.1
1 of
TRIPTI SAINI
2025.03.12 10:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3360-2006
2006 (O&M) -6-the offence under Section 304-A
304 A of the IPC holding the impugnedaccident having been caused on account of negligence of the deceased
himself. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued
that at the time of accident the deceased was drunk and was totally
under the influence of alcohol which is quite evident from the report
of Chemical
Chemical Examiner, copy Mark ‘A’. The said report is alleged to befully admissible as correctness of the same is not disputed by the
either party, reference to which can very well be found in the
judgment Ex. RX.
14.. In reply to the arguments, it was contended on behalf of the
claimants that Civil Court cannot rely on the findings of the Criminal
Court for arriving at conclusion on the questi
question
on as to whether theimpugned accident was caused due to rash and negligen
negligence ofrespondent No. 1 or of the deceased. To support his contention he has
placed reliance on the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court
of Madras in Mathuswami Vs. Siddan and others, 2005(3) Recent
Civil Reports, 9 as well as by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.
Narayan Rao Vs. Shanta Bai & Ors 2004(2) Civil Court Cases, 409.
409
15.. There is no dispute about the correctness of law as laid down
by the Hon’ble High Courts of Madra
Madrass and Andhra Pradesh in theruling cited at bar, it is well settled law that the Civil Court would not
be bound by the order of the Criminal Court on such a question in
such proceedings. The Civil Court is required to come to its own
independent conclusion on the basis of evidence recorded by it in the
TRIPTI SAINI
2025.03.12 10:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3360-2006
2006 (O&M) -7-proceedings. It has also been held in Pedda Venkatapathi Ys
Ganegunta Balappa, 65 MLJ, 146 that the Civil Court shall
undertake independent enquiry and not take into consideration the
grounds of acquittal in criminal Court as was held in Negendra
Kumar Vs Etwari Sahu, AIR 1958 pat. 229 and Satdeo Prasad Vs.
Ram Narayan, AIR 1969 Pat., 102 that the findings by the criminal
case is not conclusive proof of the malicious prosecution and
malicious intention is to be
be proved by the plaintiff.
16.. In the light of the settled law on the point we shall consider
evidence produced by the claimants on the point
point. None of the claimantwas eye witness of the accident.. The FIR in the case was lodged at the
instance of Vishav Vishal
shal alias Sonu, who was son of the deceased,Pawan Kumar. In his very first information report he has stated that
he was informed about the death of his father in the motor vehicular
accident. He has named Kashmiri Lal AW6 as eye witness of the
accident.
accident. During the course of criminal trial said Kashmiri Lal AW6
was examined as PW6. The claimant, Saroj Rani in the first claim
petition has introduced
introduced Chiman Lal AW2 as alleged ey
eyee witness of theaccident. As aforesaid, in his statement made by way of his affidavit
davitEx. AW2/A he has stated that when the bus reached near Petrol
Pump, Mudki
Mudki it crushed the deceased Paw
Pawan
an Kumar due to rash andnegligent driving of the same by Satnam Singh respondent No.1. The
other eye witness Kashmiri
Kashmiri Lal AW6 had stated that respondent No. 1.while driving the offending bus in rash and negligent manner struck
TRIPTI SAINI
2025.03.12 10:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3360-2006
2006 (O&M) -8-the same against the Scooter of the deceased as a result of which he
fell down and sustained injuries, Chiman lal AW2 is altogether silent
about
out any Scooter with the deceased. Thus, doubt is created aboutcorrectness of the testimony of Chiman Lal AW2. He appears to have
only been introduced by claimants of first claim petition to get
compensation by any means Post mortem of the deceased was
conducted
nducted during which viscera of the deceased was admitted to havebeen sent to the Chemical Examiner. Photo copy of the report of
Chemical Examiner is on the record as mark
mark’A’. Though the reportwas seen only marked, but the same is admitted in evidence as
correctness of the contents of the same were not disputed by the either
party and reference of which can also be found in the judgment dated
3.8.2004 of the Court of Shri Gurdev Singh, the then learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, EX.RX.
RX. Therefore, th
thee court can takejudicial notice of the contents of said report. The said report shows
that alcohol was detected in stomach, portion of small intestine, large
intestine, liver, spleen, kidney as well as in the blood. Blood alcohol
concentration was estimated
estimated 166.75 mgs, per 100 mls. of blood. Itshows that the deceased had taken
taken alcohol which had already goneinto his blood before his accident. Thus he was totally under the
influence of alcohol at the time when the impugned accident took
place. The Court cannot
cannot ignore this fact. On the face of it, simply onthe basis of single oral statement of Kashmiri1 Lal P
PW6
6 the impugnedaccident cannot be held to have been caused due to rash and
TRIPTI SAINI negligent driving of bus by respondent No.
No.1.. The fact that the
2025.03.12 10:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3360-2006
2006 (O&M) -9-deceased had taken alcohol which had already gone into the blood
before the accident, shows that at the time of accident he was under
the influence of alcohol and the impugned accident was taken place
due to his negligence. As such, it cannot be held that the impugned
accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. PB-
PB
11–E-1851
1851 by respondent No.1, the effect of which would be that noaward of compensation can be passed in favour of the claimants. This
issue is decided in favour of the respondents and aagainst
gainst theclaimants
claimants.
ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD
10. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned T
Tribunal
ribunal has
rightly adjudicated the matter by holding that the accident was not caused due to
the negligent driving of the respondent-driver
respondent driver but rather due to the negligence of
deceased-Pawan
Pawan Kumar himself, who was under the influence of alcohol. The
claimants failed to discharge the burden of proving negligence on the part of
respondent No.1-Satnam
No.1 Singh,, making their claim unsustainable in law.
11. A careful examination of the evidence on record reveals material
contradictions in the testimonies of the alleged eye
eye-witnesses, AW-2
2 Chiman Lal
and AW-66 Kashmiri Lal. Chiman Lal (AW-2) in his affidavit Ex. AW2/A, stated
that the deceased was crushed by
by the offending bus near a petrol pump in the area
of Mudki due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1
No.1-Satnam
Satnam Singh.
Singh
However, Kashmiri Lal (AW-6),
( in his affidavit Ex. AW6/A, deposed that the
deceased was standing with his scooter when the of
offending
fending bus struck him, causing
fatal injuries. The absence of any mention of the scooter in Chiman Lal’s (AW
AW-2)
TRIPTI SAINI
2025.03.12 10:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3360-2006
2006 (O&M) -10-
testimony raises serious doubts about the credibility of these witnesses. Such
material inconsistencies in the sequence of events cast signific
significant
ant doubt on the
reliability of the claimants’ version and weaken their case considerably.
12. Furthermore, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, acquitted
acquitt
respondent No.1 of the charge under Section 304
304-A IPC vide the judgment dated
3.8.2004, Ex. RX.
RX It was categorically held therein that the accident occurred due
to the negligence of the deceased-Pawan
deceased Pawan Kumar
Kumar, himself. While it is a settled legal
principle of law that findings in a criminal trial do not bind civil proceedings,
courts in civil cases
cases must independently assess the evidence. However, where the
criminal court has examined the same set of facts and found no culpability on the
part of the respondent, such a finding cannot be ignored, especially when the
claimants fail to bring forth cogent
cogent and reliable evidenc
evidencee to establish negligence.
The learned Tribunal,
ribunal, therefore, rightly took note of the findings in the criminal
case while independently evaluating the evidence before it.
13. Moreover, the Chemical Examiner’s
Examiner’s report, Mark ‘A’,, assumes
significant evidentiary value in the present case. Though the report was only
marked and not formally exhibited, neither party raised any objection to the
correctness of its contents and its authenticity remained undisputed. Courts are
empowered to take judicial notice of such evidence when its veracity is not
challenged. The report clearly establishes the presence of alcohol in the stomach,
small intestine, large intestine, liver, spleen, kidney, and blood of the deceased,
with a blood alcohol concentration
concentration of 166.75 mg per 100 ml. This conclusively
indicates that the deceased was heavily intoxicated at the time of the accident.
Such a high level of alcohol in the bloodstream suggests impaired judgment,
TRIPTI SAINI
2025.03.12 10:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO-3360-2006
2006 (O&M) -11-
reduced reflexes, and loss of control, making
making it highly probable that the accident
occurred due to the deceased’s own negligence rather than any fault of the
respondent-driver.
driver.
14. In view of the glaring contradictions in the testimon
testimonies
ies of the alleged
eyewitnesses, the findings of the criminal court,
court, and the unchallenged chemical
report proving intoxication of the deceased, this court finds no infirmity in the
award rendered by the learned Tribunal.
ribunal. The claimants have miserably failed to
establish negligence on the part of the respondent
respondent-driver, and
nd accordingly, the
award is upheld.
15. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any
merits.
16. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
February 28, 2025
202 (SUDEEPTI
SUDEEPTI SHARMA
SHARMA)
tripti JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
es/No
TRIPTI SAINI
2025.03.12 10:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document