Pardeep Kumar vs.Inam,etc.

BEFORE AMARINDER SHARMA, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI
(UID NO. HR0186)

CNR No HRYN01-00-6310-2019 CIS No. MACP 167-2019

Date of Institution: 20.05.2019

Date of Decision: 11.07.2022

Pardeep Kumar, aged 43 years, son of Shri Pirthi Singh, resident of VPO
Sabapur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

……Claimant.

Versus

1. Inam son of Nawab, resident of village Dhaka Devi, P.S Nanauta,

District Saharanpur.U.P (Driver of Offending Dumper bearing
no. NL02N-9862)

2. Shivam Nirwal son of Jitender Singh, resident of A.M Road,

Nagaland Mokokchung, Mokokchung, now residing at House
no.148, Nand Parshad Shamli, U.P(Owner of Offending Dumper
bearing no. NL02N-9862)

..…Respondents.

Claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle

Act, 1988 on account of injuries to Claimant
Pardeep Kumar

Present: Shri Pankaj Kamboj, counsel for claimants.

Respondent no.1 exparte vide order dated 24.07.2019
Respondent no.2 exparte vide order dated 31.10.2019

AWARD:

The claimant has filed this petition under Section 166 of Motor

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
11.07.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Pardeep Kumar vs.Inam,etc.
2

Vehicles Act, 1988, for seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lakh on

account of injuries suffered by him in a roadside accident, which allegedly

took place on 14.05.2017 on account of rash and negligent driving of

offending dumper bearing no. NL02N-9862 at the time of accident.

Dossier of facts

2. The necessary facts relating to the claim petition are that on

on 14.05.2017, claimant Pardeep Kumar was going to village Sabapur for

some work and when he was returning from village Sabapur in car

bearing no. HR 02 AG-9344, which was being driven by claimant in his

correct left side at a moderate speed by observing all traffic rules and

when at about 8.50 p.m, when he reached near Radha Swami Satsang

Ghar at Saharanpur-Jagadhri road, Jagadhri, then at the same time one

dumper bearing registration no. NL 02 N 9862 which was being driven by

its driver i.e. respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner at a very

high speed came from Jagadhri side and hit the car of the claimant while

coming on its extreme wrong side intentionally. Owing to impact of

accident, the claimant sustained multiple and grievous injuries on his

person and the car bearing registration no. HR 02 AG-9344 was totally

damaged. After hitting the car of claimant, the said dumper also hit one

another car bearing registration no. HR 02Y-3366. At the time of accident

many persons gathered there who took the claimant in Vighnesh Hospital,

Jagadhri where the doctor medico legally examined and he remained

admitted for two days in the said hospital and spent Rs. 1,00,000/- upon

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
11.07.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Pardeep Kumar vs.Inam,etc.
3

his treatment and still he is unable do any kind of work due to injuries

sustained and still is bed ridden. The accident was witnessed by one

passerby and on statement of claimant, FIR no. 804 dated 18.05.2017

under section 279,336,427 IPC was registered with Police Station

Jagadhri.

3. It is pertinent to mention that respondents no.1 and 2 failed to

appear before the court and were proceeded against exparte vide order

dated 24.07.2019 and 31.10.2019 respectively.

4. To establish his claim through this enquiry, claimant in his exparte

evidence examined himself as PW1 and he has deposed about the contents

of the claim petition. He also examined Dr. Vineet Garg as PW2 . It would

be appropriate to elaborate the documentary evidence which have been

tendered on record. They are indicated in table no.1 below:

“Table No. 1”

Ex.P1 Copy of FIR

Ex P 2 Copy of report under section 173 Cr.P.C
Ex P3 Charge sheet
Ex P4 Certified copy of MLR

Arguments advanced by learned counsel for claimant.

5. Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted and prayed

for grant of compensation of ₹ 20 lakh on account of the injuries suffered

by claimant in a roadside accident, which allegedly took place on

14.05.2017 on account of rash and negligent driving of offending dumper

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
11.07.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Pardeep Kumar vs.Inam,etc.
4

and in support of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance

upon the case laws titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay

Sethi and others, 2017 (4) RCR (Civil)1009. He has further submitted

that the documentary and oral evidence on behalf of claimant is

convincing and unequivocal in nature and that the claimant has been able

to establish that injuries were suffered by the claimant due to the rash and

negligent driving of respondent no.1 and that as per the various heads, the

claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 20 lakh as prayed for in the

claim petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimant who has

argued as per the pleas and have gone through the record meticulously.

FINDINGS.

7. In order to prove the case, it was incumbent upon claimant to

establish that the accident in question which resulted in the injuries

suffered by claimant actually took place due to the rash and negligent

driving of the offending dumper in question. It was also upon him to

establish by way of balance of probabilities that the vehicle in question

was being driven by respondent no.1, on the fateful day of occurrence.

8. At the outset, it needs to be noted that the proceedings before

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and the

Tribunal is not required to scrutinize the evidence in the manner as is done

in civil or criminal cases. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in

Lekhu Singh and others versus Uday Singh and others, 2007(4) PLR

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
11.07.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Pardeep Kumar vs.Inam,etc.
5

507 has held that while considering a claim petition, the Tribunal is

required to hold an inquiry and not act as a criminal court so as to find

whether the claimants have established the occurrence beyond shadow of

any reasonable doubt. In the inquiry, if there is prima facie evidence of

the occurrence, there is no reason to disbelieve such evidence.

Similar view has also been recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Kusum Lata versus Satbir Singh 2011(2) Apex Court

Judgments 241 wherein it has been categorically held that in a claim

petition, the claimants are required to establish their case on the touch

stone of preponderance of probability.

9. In this regard, this court is convinced with the submissions of

learned counsel for claimant that reliable, cogent and convincing evidence

has been led on record by the claimant in order to give strength to his

version. Claimant Pardeep Kumar (PW1) testified as per his version

contained in the petition. He testified that one dumper bearing registration

no. NL 02 N 9862 which was being driven by its driver i.e. respondent

no.1 in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed came from

Jagadhri side and hit the car of the claimant while coming on its extreme

wrong side intentionally. Owing to impact of accident, the claimant

sustained multiple and grievous injuries on his person and the car bearing

registration no. HR 02 AG-9344 was totally damaged. After hitting the car

of claimant, the said dumper also hit one another car bearing registration

no. HR 02Y-3366. At the time of accident many persons gathered there

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
11.07.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Pardeep Kumar vs.Inam,etc.
6

who took the claimant in Vighnesh Hospital, Jagadhri where the doctor

medico legally examined him and he remained admitted for two days in

the said hospital and spent Rs. 1,00,000/- upon his treatment and still he is

unable do any kind of work due to injuries sustained and still is bed

ridden. The accident was witnessed by one passerby and on statement of

claimant, FIR no. 804 dated 18.05.2017 under section 279,336,427 IPC

was registered with Police Station Jagadhri.

Claimant is himself injured in this accident. Deposition of

petitioner is supported with contents of FIR (Ex P1), wherein mode and

manner of accident is mentioned as per version set up by the claimant.

Ex.P3 is the copy of charge sheet dated 18.12.2017 indicating that

respondent no.1 has been charge sheeted and is facing trial in the court for

causing this accident.

As a matter of fact, respondents no.1 and 2 have rather been

proceeded exparte and have not led any evidence to deny the allegations

against them, nor they have produced any record to show that they

represented before any authority regarding the false implication in FIR no.

804 dated 18.05.2017. Also, there is nothing on record that the charge-

sheet framed against respondent no.1 has been challenged by him in any

competent court of law. In the present case, the respondent No.1 driver

was the best person to depose about the accident but he did not appear in

the witness box and was rather proceeded exparte vide order dated

06.01.2020. In judgment bearing case titled Harjinder Kaur vs

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
11.07.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Pardeep Kumar vs.Inam,etc.
7

Pushpinder Kumar, 2017(4) ACC 395, it has been held by the Hon’ble

High Court:

“10. There is another principle of law which has been

ignored in this case by the Tribunal. The driver and
owner of the offending vehicle did not appear as a
witness in support of his case. In the written statement,
he took the stand that no accident was caused with his
vehicle but he failed to support this statement by any
evidence. The least what he could have done was to
have appeared as his own witness and supported his case
subject to cross-examination. Having failed to do so, an
adverse inference has to be drawn against him. This
Court in Raju and others v. Sukhwinder Singh and
others, 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 82, after examining the
law on the subject, has held as follows:-

"10. This Court agrees with the contention raised by the

learned counsel for the appellants that non examination
of truck driver i.e. respondent No. 1 by the respondents
was fatal and a presumption had to be drawn regarding
his involvement in the accident. It is not disputed that he
was the driver of truck No. HNE 2180. Therefore, the
findings on issue No. 1 are reversed and the same is
decided in favour of the claimants. It is also held that the
accident in question was a result of rash and negligent
driving of the said truck which was being driven by
respondent No. 1-Sukhwinder Singh."

Thus, the non appearance of the respondent No.1/driver in

witness box as well as before court without explanation is also a

circumstance to raise adverse inference against the respondent no.1.

Furthermore, with regard to establishing the rashness and

negligence on the part of respondent no.1, the claimant Pardeep Kumar

has himself stepped into witness box as PW1 and the documentary

evidence is also corroborating the ocular evidence.

In the judgment titled as Royal Sundaram Alliance

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
11.07.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Pardeep Kumar vs.Inam,etc.
8

Insurance Company Ltd. vs Harvinder Kaur @ Harwinder, 2017(4)

ACC 329, it has been held that where the driver of offending vehicle is

facing criminal trial, the same is sufficient in claim petition to show his

involvement in accident in question and insurance company was held to

be liable to pay compensation.

Further, in the judgment titled as Ramphal vs Baljit

Singh,2014(7) RCR (Civil) 185, it has been held that where Charge-sheet

is submitted against the driver before the Court after completion of the

investigation, it would prima facie disclose that the investigating officer

was convinced that a case was made out for rash and negligent driving of

the driver.

In view of the aforesaid discussed facts and circumstances

and the evidence (both oral and documentary) which has come on record,

it stands established that the accident in question took place due to rash

and negligent driving of dumper bearing registration No. NL02 N9862

driven by respondent No.1.

10. Now the claimant is required to establish as to what

amount of compensation he is entitled for. It is apropos to mention that

merely in exparte evidence, establishing rashness is not sufficient. Rather,

it was the incumbent duty of claimant to establish that there are

reasonable, sufficient and justifiable grounds for grant of any claim and

hence, the injuries so received as well as the entitlement for the claim

should have been indicated, established and proved on the case file.

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
11.07.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Pardeep Kumar vs.Inam,etc.
9

However, no such convincing material is available on the case file to give

impetus indicating any reasonable circumstances for grant of

claim/compensation to the claimant on account of alleged injuries.

Claimant testified by way of affidavit Ex PW1/A that he received multiple

and grievous injuries on his person and he was medico legally examined

and remained admitted for one day in Vighnesh Hospital, Jagadhri and

spent approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- on his treatment and is till date bed

ridden and spending amount on his treatment.

PW2 Dr. Vineet Garg, Shivalik Hospital, has testified that

claimant was admitted in Vighnesh hospital with the alleged history of

road side accident on 14.05.2017 and he proved his MLR report as Ex P4.

He further stated that patient was admitted in Vighnesh Hospital from

15.05.2017 to 16.05.2017 and at that time he was working in Vighnesh

Hospital as consultant. He proved that Vighnesh Hospital had charged Rs.

2750/- from patient Pardeep Kumar.

However, merely because the respondents have been

proceeded against as exparte, it does not dispense with the convincing

proof and evidence to have been established on the case file by the

claimant with regard to his injuries, days of admission in the hospital, as

well as relevant medical bills. Mere bald assertions of PW2 that an

amount of Rs. 2750/- was charged from the claimant cannot be held as

sufficient proof as per the principle of Indian Evidence Act to establish

that what was the actual amount spent by the claimant at the hospital.

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
11.07.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Pardeep Kumar vs.Inam,etc.
10

Moreover, admittedly, PW2 at the time of his deposition was working at

Shivalik Hospital, Yamuna Nagar and therefore, it would have been

appropriate if concerned employee of Vighnesh Hospital would have been

examined for the purpose of establishing the treatment and charges if any,

charged by Vighnesh Hospital. PW2 has rather gone to the extent to

depose that he is not sure if Pardeep Kumar is the same person or not as

indicated in the MLR. The relevant criminal file bearing FIR no. 804

dated 18.05.2017 was also summoned from the concerned court and the

MLR of the claimant has been perused from the record of that case. No

such material injury has been indicated in the MLR which would reflect

admission in hospital for three days. The injuries mainly pertain to a

reddish abrasion which is on two parts of the body and complaint of

headache. In such circumstances, it was material for the claimant to have

led convincing evidence to establish that as to why and under what

circumstances, he remained admitted in hospital for three days. Whereas,

PW2 has stated that he remained admitted on 14.05.2017, 15.05.2017 and

16.05.2017 at Vighnesh Hospital, however, on the other hand, the

claimant himself by way of his detailed affidavit Ex PW1/A has

maintained in para no. 2 of his affidavit at page no.2 that he remained

admitted in hospital for only one day. Therefore, there are material

contradictions with regard to even the time and alleged dates of the

admission of the claimant in the hospital. Withal, whereas it has been

maintained that he spent approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- on his treatment,

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
11.07.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Pardeep Kumar vs.Inam,etc.
11

however, not even a single medical bill/ receipt or any bill indicating the

purchase of medicines have been appended and proved on the case file.

Therefore, even if, the factum of accident to have been caused by

respondent no.1 has been established by virtue of exparte evidence and

considering that the proceedings before MACT Tribunal are summary in

nature, however, the said circumstances are certainly not sufficient to

allow the present claim petition considering the exaggerated claim of the

claimant whereby he has claimed for an amount of Rs. 20 lakh in para no.

22 of the petition. In absence of any medical bills, receipts as well as on

account of the discrepant evidence on the case file, this court is convinced

that the present claim petition deserves to be dismissed in the larger ends

of justice.

CONCLUSION

11. In view of above discussion, the present claim petition

is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee is assessed as ₹ 1100/-. Memo

of costs be prepared. File be consigned to the record room, after due

compliance.

Ahlmad is directed that the file for consignment should be

prepared as per clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Chapter 16F Volume-IV of High

Court Rules and Orders (i.e. arranging the files in Part A & B) so that the

record which is to be destroyed/weeded out shall be kept separately from

the initial stage. Reader/Ahlmad are also directed to prepare the list of the

witnesses and exhibits, if any, at the end in an annexure form as per clause

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
11.07.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Pardeep Kumar vs.Inam,etc.
12

(9) of Rule 2 of Chapter 11, Volume-I, Part A of the Rules and Orders of

Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Pronounced in open Court. (Amarinder Sharma)

Dated: 11.07.2022 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
gitika (UID No. HR0186)

Note: All pages of this judgment have been directly dictated on computer,
checked and signed by me.

(Amarinder Sharma)
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
(UID No. HR0186)
gitika

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
11.07.2022 (UID No.HR0186)
 Pardeep Kumar vs.Inam,etc.
13

CNR No HRYN01-00-6310-2019 CIS No. MACP 167-2019

Present: Shri Pankaj Kamboj, counsel for claimants.

Respondent no.1 exparte vide order dated 24.07.2019
Respondent no.2 exparte vide order dated 31.10.2019

Arguments heard. Order pronounced. Vide my separate

detailed award of even date, the present claim petition has been dismissed
with costs. Counsel fee is assessed as ₹ 1100/-. Memo of costs be
prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open Court. (Amarinder Sharma)

Dated: 11.07.2022 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
(UID No. HR0186)
gitika

(Amarinder Sharma)
MACT/Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri
11.07.2022 (UID No.HR0186)