High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Smt. Saroj Bala & Ors v. Man Singh & Ors - FAO-687-1992  RD-P&H 905 (17 February 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
F.A.O. No. 687 of 1992
Date of Decision: February 22, 2006
Smt. Saroj Bala and others
Man Singh and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Pritam Saini Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. R.K. Bishambhu, Advocate
for the respondents.
VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
The claimants are the appellants before this Court. They claimed compensation on account of the death of Ramesh Chand who died in an accident on July 11,1990.
The learned Tribunal vide its award dated January 20, 1992, has rejected the claim filed by the claimants on the ground that no such evidence had been led by the claimants which could show that the driver of the offending vehicle was, in any manner, negligent. It has also been held by the learned Tribunal that the driver and owner of the vehicle were colluding with the claimants.
F.A.O. No. 687 of 1992 
Mr. Pritam Saini, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/ appellants has vehemently argued that the entire evidence on the record has been completely misread by the Tribunal. It has further been argued by the learned counsel that an admission made by Karam Singh PW3 that Devinder Singh, RW2 would show that there was no collusion between the driver and the claimants. The learned Tribunal has also observed that driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box. According to learned counsel for the appellants, it was beyond the control of the claimants to examine him and if the driver had not appeared in the witness box then an adverse inference should have been drawn against him. Mr. Saini further argues that it would be in the interest of justice, in view of the latest law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 2001 ACJ 428 (Kaushnuma Begum and others Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others) to hold that the claimants were entitled for compensation.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration various observations made by the learned Tribunal, it appears that the claimants should be granted some further opportunity to lead evidence before the Tribunal to prove the rashness and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Certain observations made by the learned Tribunal in rejecting the claim of the claimants can also not be accepted.
Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh decision of the claim petition filed by the claimants.
The parties before the Tribunal would be entitled to produce fresh evidence in support of their respective pleas. The learned Tribunal shall re-decide the matter after taking into consideration the entire evidence led by the parties. While deciding the matter afresh, the learned Tribunal shall not take into consideration F.A.O. No. 687 of 1992 
any observations made in the award dated January 20, 1992 passed by the Tribunal. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra on April 17, 2006. The learned Tribunal shall now afford three effective opportunities each, to the parties, to lead any fresh evidence, if so desired and thereafter shall decide the claim petition in accordance with law.
February 22, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.