Jai Pal Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on 28th of January, 2025 Pronounced on 25th of March, 2025 Jai Pal Singh .....Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. S.S. Mann, Addl. A.G.,, Haryana.

Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.4.

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

     

          

 

!

  

 " !

#

$$ ! %

  &&'

!

  !!   )



    "

% 
'



  * 



  + ,

' !  '

  

 !! - !    

 '

,  

   

        

*

*  ! 

 . / 

!

 !  1 2



   



 "

  

 * + -4)"$),&

'  5 " 2 

 

 ! 



 !  , 2

'  

*

*  

                

 

   6!  !! 5/
4 . 4

!7     
2)   *  





% 
'  
2)   864

     

 ! 8649:;


<

  864       % 
'  6   * 

  

'

   

  * -!

 ! 

* !

'  *

6  



  !

'  

 864%

' ! 

 

'

!

  



' 

$


'



' 

  ! ' 

,


 ' 2 #

 % -  



 ! 
 ! ' + -+ ),& -4 #  !!

*

* 

!!

 ! 

  $

 !

 

   ! 

  =   !  

>     *=

 

>6   !

 * !!

*

 !



     

) %

'

 ?

*!

   *

   !



!   !

  



  ! 

!864

    !!

*



' @




 !

 *

          A   *

   % 
' !    

   ' 

' 

'  

!!!   !#  

6   



  *    '

*!



 6   !

 !! *





 6 ! *

    * *

*  !

   !

!

 !



  & 6*

 !

   * !

 





  The primary issue relates to negligence. Laying down the proposition regarding the scope of inquiry and the standard of proof to be applied by the Tribunals, Supreme Court in the case of 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shila Datta & Ors.', (2011)10 SCC 509 observed as under :- "5
   

  !

 

         

9!

       !

  <!

 

 

  #

$ !  

  *



6  



  

! 

   *

 ! B66 ! 





 !2  

;! 

   

                 

 

 0 <




!



 



!

    





!



     * 9 < #

$$9< #

$,) ! 

    !

9!

   #

  &9$<  !           



  !

#

$$9.< ! <

<

 



 

 

    C

   '  



     !

   6!   

  





 

<6 



  

 

 *       

 #

.9"< !  2

!

  

  * !    



* * 

  

 

   3  *



   )    2        

          C

 

#

.9"<

! 6! 

   





! 



 *< 1 !



!



7

#

$&!  



!





  

 

  !    



  !

 

   #

$$9.< !  !  !

#

&9$< !  9*<  

       (

       

 





   *



/ !



9  ! 

 

 

<

 *

   #

.9"< !   *

  !     

  

 C

  

   '      

 



   ( 9%

#

$& ! < 9* <       C

   !

  

   

      '  !

 6  

             

 '   !     * C

  

C

9%

#

$ ! < 9*

< ! 

 

!  9<  

  

   

  6  

 

 

!





 

 

  * !*

*





 ! 9%

#

$& ! < 9*

< 

*

 !    

    !    !

 9%

#

$&9"< ! < 9.1 The aforesaid proposition laid down by 3 Judges Bench was relied upon by Supreme Court in the case of 'Dulcina Fernandes vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz' (2013) 10 SCC 646, to observe as under :- "xxx xxx - *  !  

 !

   !

*  



2)"  *  '

-

 ! :

 

#

 

            !

    



 

 ! * 



)   !

 

    3!

 

 



  *

' ! 

* 

         !

        !

   

 !

 7 (emphasis supplied) 10.

Applying the aforesaid ratio of law to the present case, FIR No.4 dated 02.01.1992 related to the accident in question stands proved on record as Exhibit P-A. It has come on record that after investigation, police authorities found that the bus was involved in the accident and Trilok Chand, driver of the offending vehicle was charge-sheeted. The Tribunal heavily relied upon contents of the FIR but totally discarded the police report, on the strength of which, Trilok Chand faced trial. Trite it is that FIR though is a cogent piece of evidence but is not an encyclopedia of the incident. The statement made by Ved Parkash which led to registration of FIR needs to be considered in the light of the fact that on the date the

accident occurred i.e. 01.01.1992, he was opined to be unfit to give statement. He gave statement to the police authorities on 02.01.1992. The scooter was hit by the offending vehicle from behind. Considering it was 06.00 PM in Gurgaon on 02.01.1992, the Court can safely take note of the fact that places in the northern India in early January are not only dark but also foggy. Thus, Tribunal instead of being swayed away by the contents of the FIR should have taken a more holistic view and should not have ignored the investigation report of the police which led to criminal trial against Tirlok Chand.

 6*  ! * 

!

 

 



!

 +  

  !



  + 

   *  6 

  

  

C 



       ! 

 * ! + -4)"$),& 

' QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION While deciding issue No.2, Tribunal held claimant entitled to compensation of Rs.4,51,000/-. It has been proved on record that appellant who was 45 years of the age at the time of accident was earning salary of Rs.2,821/-. Having been rendered permanently disabled to the extent of 70% after losing his left leg he was released from services on medical ground and earned pension of Rs.589/-. Thus he suffered loss of Rs.2,232/-

per month and has been rendered crippled for rest of his life. His functional disability is taken to be 100%. He is entitled for multiplier of 14 in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of 'Smt. Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another' (2009) 6 SCC 121. He is also entitled for future prospects @30%. Rs.50,000/- is awarded as Attendant Charges. Rs.50,000/- is awarded for special diet. For pain and sufferings the claimant is awarded a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs. Lower Court Record is stated to have been lost in the fire. The record is burnt, applying guess work, medical expenses are awarded to the tune of Rs.50,000/- "    

 

 March 25, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No