Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Raj Kumari And ORS.
! " # $%$&'$()*+#,-,#
&)*).*/$()*+# !0$1 $23$&4#
5625$*$&57*%.&5*/$),8 (, ,,,11$775* % 9$&%.%
5:;.25& 5*() !$&% ,,, $%1)*($* % -
! "
5625$*$&57*%.&5*/$),8 (, ,,,11$775* % 9$&%.% 5&%!*5$' 5*() !$&% ,,, $%1)*($* % + <8
, 09 =8
!
"""" 9 =84, #
$% & ' & () %% #*++#, %
&-
&-
- +#, ./ +#, & - & - 2 2 &
4/)5 6 $77 +#, +#, 4/)5 0+ $77 +#, ./ +#,
0 ) - 8 % & 8 % +1++#6
) )
% - 9-8 % % % - 8 % 8 %
% - -
#:#6 ;% % ) 8 % 8 % 9-8 %- 9 % - - % ;
-) 9 ! < < 8 % 9-8 %
8 = $ % > < < < %
+*++#6 .7>
;
? ! 8 %
- -
- %
& & /
=#
=
- 9
%
% -&9
%
& - %
-
;
= &-
=# .7> &
6
-
%
%
% -&9
.7>&
2
% - %
-
=#
%
%
& 1 .% %
"1.
Whether the accident causing death of Arun Kumar son of Sh. Pawan Kumar and Vijay Kumar son of Shri Dharambir had taken place on 06.04.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing registration No. 21J-4874 by respondent No. 1 as alleged? OPP 2.
If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the claimants Raj Kumari & another of claim petition No. 354 dated 27.08.2015 are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3.
If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the claimant Dharshna of claim petition No. 355 dated 27.08.2015 is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 4.
Whether the respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so its effect? OPR 5.
Whether the petitioners have no locus standi or cause of action to the present petitions? OPR 6.
Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 6.
Relief."
,
-
& %% & %
> #01+++:
,6@
% $% = 06 +#6 $% =066 +#6 %
> #01+++:
,6@
% * &-
-
&9
A =
-
#+ > & B
## 7 %
&-
- # ?
-
&
&
&- % ;
& 2
- %
% + - .7>
;
& -
% - ! 8 %C&-
! 8 % % %; %
% + - 2% %
% <
-% . % & -
% > *+++:
%
-6+@
%
#0 /
&9
:
&
&
% % % %
> A1AA,:
%
& $
<
& - %
& -
<
&
% &
-
&& -
&- & & B % B %
D
& % &9
&
# & #, #A & -
%
"17. After having heard, this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that no doubt there is delay in reporting the number of the offending vehicle and name of the driver on part of PW4 Gulshan. However, this fact cannot be made basis to reject his testimony. PW4 Gulshan is not related to the deceased or the petitioner's family in any way. No cross-examination was conducted by the respondents in this regard. The most important document document in this case is the mechanical report of offending tractor. At the time of its inspection, bumper of the aforesaid tractor from driver side was found to be damaged and this can only happen in case of accident. It has not been claimed by the respondents that aforesaid damage to the tractor was caused some where else and not in this accident.
It is also a fact to be taken is that after investigation accused-respondent no.1 was sent to face trial. Charges were framed against him. On 10.09.2015 vide charge sheet Ex.P24 accused-respondent No.1 was facing a criminal trial, without any protest of lodging any false FIR against him. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that unless or until there is some smell found between owner, driver and petitioners. Mere delay is not significant factor itself on basis of which it can be held that the vehicle in question ha been planted. Therefore, finding support from Lakhu vs Uday Singh" 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 805 it is held that the accident was caused by respondent No.1.
18. This Tribunal is also of the considered opinion that negligence in compensation cases has to be decided on preponderance of probabilities and not on basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. My aforesaid views is fortified by law laid down in Rama Sood and others Vs. Chavan Singh and others 2016(5) RCR (Civil), 797. This tribunal is also of the considered opinion that the accident cases should not be decided on basis of niceties and hyper technicalities of law and right of the claimants is not be defeated on technical grounds.
19. From the above discussed evidence adduced by the claimants one fact is clear that the FIR No.146 dated 07.04.2015 under sections 279,337, 304-A of IPC Ex.P3 was registered against the respondent no.1 at Police Station Narnaund for causing the accident in question. It has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the authorities "Lakhu vs Uday Singh" 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 805 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs Sanjay Kumar & Ors II (2011) ACC 75 that facts of registration of FIR and trial of the accused in a criminal court are sufficient to arrive at a conclusion in the cases under the Motor Vehicles Act that the accident has taken place. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the claimants." #6 ?
$ )
$ ./ 0# +#
,++#1 #1 & .7>
;
&
&-
% %
7 /
% % ;
-
2% &-
;%D
% %
=#
7 /
&
2% ! 8 %C -
<
-
-
%
% - 8 %= &
% %; %
%
-+- &
&
%
% %
% - -
& - & % . % % - & % %
& %
% &%
-
%
= #
= #
&2 & % - ! 8 %C % - ! 8 % %
&
D & - 2 & -
8 % 9-8 %
, #, B
%
- % %
-
% & - > *+++:
%
&9
%
-
% & & %
-
% 8 % > *+++:
&- ; % - &
&-
% -%
8 % 8 % !
D - ? )
2% 8 % !
C6 8 % ; % - > A+++:
%
> #++++:
%
& %
8 % !
C6 % &-
& > A+++:
%
> ++++:
%
> #++++:
%; > #++++:
&- ; #* & - %
% & ;
< 8 %& % - &- 8 %!
% & - %
8 %!
%
% < - .7>=,1 +#0
D
,A00, 00* 7 $ D ) $ - - .7> E2& C6:. .7>
;
& =<> #1 6++#
)
*
&
%E2& C6:E - &- $ 5 ) #+*+#6
8 %
+,++#6D - 8 % !
C6
8 % ; % - %%
- - > #++++:
%
D &
% 8 % > *+++:
%
&
&-
% 8 % & > #++++:
%
&
6+@)
8 % % -%
6- &-< (& 2$ +#,7> D$6#6,
& +@
& % 6+@ #A $
< % & % D
> #6+++:
2 F> #6+++:
> ++++:
% +
8 %
-7
% > #++++:
+@
> +++:
> #+++:
#:
2 > ,+++:
#+++ ,+++G> ,+++:
#* > ,+++2#*2# > #6#+++:
$
<
2 % > ##++++:
> #1+++:
# -&
9- 8 % $% = 066 +#6
%%
-
% > ++++:
& & -
9- 8 % > ++++:
%
- 2 % -%
D - & - %
-
% > *+++:
%
& & &
&2
< & 6+@
9- 8 % &+- - %
% -%
+@
B D &
6+@ B &
+@ & -
6+@
%
2 9-8 % % % &
-
D
-
% > #+A1++:
> 61++2#2#* & -
%
2 > 6+++:
6+++:
> ++++:
B &
%F> #6+++:
2 > #6+++:
#+
D
$
< > 0++++:
B &
> ,++++:
9-8 %
-7
% > *+++:
+@
> 0++:
> ##++:
#:
2 > 61++:
##++H61++G> 61++:
#* > 61++2#*2# > #+A1++:
$
<
2 % > ,++++:
> #,A1++:
%
-
&- & % 0
- ./ +#, ./ +#, 4/)5 6 $77 +#, +#, 4/)5 0+ $77 +#, +#, % 9 =8 +6 D
%&+6 %D% C ; : √I := C & √I :=