Oriental Insur. Co. Ltd v. Kashmir Kaur & ORS
!"
#$ "
"% "& '
!"
#$ %#(#)(*"+"(!&
, '
!"
#$ -.# /0(1& 2 '
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced?
YES & 34
5 5 5 5
! " #$ % & ' % ( ) * ++++ 5 5
) ! , % ,- .
- " / 010230)0 % ' )224)*0 % # )566 ,-
!,
78 % 9 !, :$ " ,- -
% 2 0004. , /"- %; .
- / < % ," "
3 =% % % ))3300> /
"
, ? " @ "/ A '" - =&& ," , =.16..0>)B "& '" % (
'" % " '/ C / " , ! - / ," ,- A '" /
"
C - ! !. ? '" " - / D & ,"
, =.0B.A.)132 ," ,- % " C
"" " /"
/ ,/"
%
? " - % ? '" / ? '" A '" %
& "& '" " % ?
E
78 % / - / % / ? '" )33300> '" E 7 (3*B 3)6300B / " ' - , 1 @ % % % * 7 "
%
%/"
/ % ,- !, .
") C ? '"
,- () / " & D ," =.0B.
A.)132 "" % " C- '" C ))3300> "F 3 %
() / . " % - % % / / ;F 1 C ,F * C % %%" / " "F .B
B C % %
;
?/" % F .B 2 C % %" ,- /- %
F .B > %G B % ?" "
!, / 4 ( ) * E/ .
- / , -
E 2 " ,% % H
-
%"
% !,
% ""
"
, "
"" ( 6 % %%"
- E %
, ,% !, - , & / " " / % !.&
, /
- ," % 6 % % "
)565
- , / ""
! ,- %" ,
,
%
< - "
% ;
"" % % %%"
"
, - "" %
- , / " / ,
,- %
> " % ( ) *H
%"
,- !, E
!,
%
- "- % %%" - "" % / %" / E % - ," % ,
6
%
/ % 5 =% " %
% / /
.
"ISSUE NO.1.
9. Sh S.S.Sidhu, learned counsel for the claimants has argued that PW2 Angrej Singh is the eye witness of this accident, who proved it on record that accident in question had been occurred by respondent No.4, while driving Qualis bearing no. PB-05-J-1326 in rash and negligent manner, which caused the death of for Malook Singh. The learned counsel also referred to the contents of the FIR EX.PA and copy of the post mortem, Whereas on the other hand Sh.Satinder Singh, learned counsel respondents No.1 to 4 and Sh.M.L.Chugh, learned counsel for respondent No.5 have argued that PW2 Angrej Singh is made up witness and no reliance can be placed upon his testimony. It has been argued on behalf of respondents that PW2 Angrej Singh was earlier not known to driver of the offending vehicle, who was not apprehended at the spot, therefore, the statement of this witness is not sufficient to driving hold that the respondent No.4 was offending Jeep Qualis at the relevant time and he caused this accident.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions of counsels for the parties.
11. In order to prove accident in question, the claimants have examined PW2 Angrej Singh, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PW2/A. By way of his affidavit, PW2 Angrej Singh has stated that he knew deceased Malook Singh who died in this accident. He further stated that on 1.2.2007 Malook Singh deceased was coming back to his village Mamdot Uttar along with one Jasveer Singh on motorcycle Bajaj bearing No.PB38-A-0715 and he coming behind them. The Was motorcycle was being driven by deceased Malook Singh and Jasveer Singh was sitting on pillion seat. When they reached on G.T.Road, T-Point, then Malook Singh jave indication and turned his vehicle towards Mindot then Qualis Jeep no. PB-05-J-1326 came from opposite side which was being driven by respondent no.
4 Chhinda in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed without blowing horn. The Qualis Jeep struck against motorcycle of deceased Malook Singh, due to which Malook Singh and Jasveer Singh received injuries. He further stated that he το the arranged for the vehicle and took them to Mission Rospital, Ferozepur but due injuries they were referred to Amritsar where Malook Singh died on 12.2.2007 in Amandeep Hospital Amritsar. Claimants further brought on record the copy of FIR no. 21, Ex.PA, which was got registered on the statement of PW2-Angrej Singh. The claimants also brought on record the copy deceased is Ex.PB. of of postmortem report In order to rebut this evidence respondent No.4 Chinda Singh Surinder Singh stepped into the witness box as RWI (wrongly numbered as RW4) and tendered into evidence is affidavit Ex.
RW4/A, wherein he has stated that no accident has taken place with the vehicle in question and false FIR has been got registered by the claimants. Thus the case of respondent no. 4 is of mere denial. However, he has not pleaded or proved the reason of his false implication in this case. No enmity of PW2 Angrej Singh or claimants with respondent no.4 is either pleaded or proved on record. Further the statement of PW2 Angrej Singh is corrobrated by duly contained in the FIR Ex.PA, the averments same which the regarding manner of accident as has been stated by PW2 Angrej Singh in his testimony before the Court. The said FIR was got registered against respondent no.4 Further from the perusal of post-mortem report Ex.
'
died due to accidental injuries sustained by him. PW2 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the respondents, but nothing has come on record to doubt his veracity. From the testimony of PW2 Angrej Singh, it has been proved on record that respondent No.4 caused the accident in question while driving Qualis bearing no. PB-05-J-1326 in rash and negligent manner. Thus this issue is decided in favour of claimants and against the respondents."
)0
"% -
,
,- - ; " ,- !, " /
% "" " )) %" % !,
- % - % C3 "& '" / , ; -./
% " %
/ %
% /
E
% - ,
"" ( * / / " %%" D "
/
? " - % !.& )3 ! % H
- 6 % % "
)565 ,- "
%
,
, % ! % , - "" ," < % % / < ,
,- " /
- ?" )1
, % - , " "" % % 6 ipso facto %" %
, - "" ! , ,- ( * / - ; % % "- ,
)* ! - % - % C3 , - ,
IG I.
G /
- % -./
% % , ,
/-
%%
%" % ""
" "
.; % C3
,% E -
/ %
.;
% )B %
, %
- 7 J; $ / / - " , %
%
! . J; =$
,- , " % / < % &
)2
% ,- ( * % ! " /
,;
% %% -
, ; /- / , % - ( % - % -.
/
, '
,
, % -
"
" / " , ,- )>
/ "
,%
!,
- % % % % ,, % ,- , , !
,-
- , % )6
/ % % % !,
/.
"-
, %" " ( * "
- % "
%%" "" ! %"
%% % - - "- " % / % & )5
"- %" % !,
% ""
30
/ % , /0 +0
"/ 3) "
% - %
5 5
, '
C ?"4.
?" '?"
C , K