Saroj Rani And Ors vs Satnam Singh And Ors on 28 February, 2025

Date:

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/1851

them, 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 impugned

accident was attributed to rash and nnegligent driving of offending Bus
Bu

by respondent No.1.

No.

12.. To lend colour to their submission
submissions, they have placed reliance

on the testimonies made by Chiman Lal AW2 and Kashmiri Lal AW2
AW

besides the testimonies of Saroj Ran
Rani AWI and Ram Parkash AW7.

The claimants Saroj Rani AW1 as well as Ra
Ram Parkash AW7 in their

testimonies 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 to

be the eye witnesses of the accident, Chiman La
Lall AW2 was examined

by claimant Saroj
Saroj Rani, who by way of his affidavit Ex. AW2/A,
/A, has

stated 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,
crushed

deceased Pawan Kumar due to rash
rash and negligent dri
driving
ving of the same

by 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/A

standing with his
h Scooter in front of a Dhab
Dhaba,
a, a bus came from Mudki

side 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 of

Pawan 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 and

negligent 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 of

oral 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 rash

and negligent driving framed against him in Criminal case
case. My

attention 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 impugned

accident 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 be

fully 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 the

impugned accident was caused due to rash and negligen
negligence of

respondent 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 the

ruling 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 claimant

was 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 the

accident. As aforesaid, in his statement made by way of his affidavit
davit

Ex. 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 and

negligent 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 about

correctness 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 have

been sent to the Chemical Examiner. Photo copy of the report of

Chemical Examiner is on the record as mark
mark’A’. Though the report

was 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 take

judicial 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. It

shows that the deceased had taken
taken alcohol which had already gone

into 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 on

the basis of single oral statement of Kashmiri1 Lal P
PW6
6 the impugned

accident 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 no

award of compensation can be passed in favour of the claimants. This

issue is decided in favour of the respondents and aagainst
gainst the

claimants
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



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:

Subscribe

spot_imgspot_img

Popular

More like this
Related