Shashikant Sharma vs. Gurmeet Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

FAO No.255 of 2006. Date of decision: 23.05.2012.

Shashi Kant Sharma, S/o Shri Sohan Lal Sharma, R/o Village Badripur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh.

Versus

… … …Appellant

• 1. Sh.Gurmeet Singh, S/o late Sh.Santa Singh, R/o Village Behral, P.O. Bata Mandi, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. (Owner of Truck No.HPN-2098).
• 2. Shri Jaswinder Singh, S/o Shri Gurmeet Singh, R/o Village Behral, P.O. Bata Mandi, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. (Driver of Vehicle No.HPN-2098).
• 3. New India Assurance Company Ltd.through the Branch Manager of its Yamunanagar Branch, District Yamunanagar, Haryana.

… … …Respondents

Appeal Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?¹ No. For the Appellant: Mr.O.P. Negi, Advocate vice Mr.V.S.Chauhan, Advocate. For Respondents 1 & 2: Mr.Sandeep Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr.Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.3: Mr.Praneet Gupta, Advocate.

Dev Darshan Sud,J.

The case of the petitioner is that he was injured in the accident and that he is entitled to the claim as filed.

¹ Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes.

2. The petitioner claims to have been injured in a motor accident involving a truck bearing No.HPN-2098 which was being driven by Shri Jaswinder Singh respondent. The accident was denied. On the evidence the learned Tribunal found against the appellant and dismissed the petition.

3. The first settled issue before the learned Tribunal was as to whether the petitioner sustained injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck No.HPN-2098. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on the evidence produced on record, holds that no negligence can be attributed to the owner of the truck. Learned Tribunal holds that the motor-cycle which was being driven by the petitioner struck with the rear portion of the truck at the time when the truck had slowed down to negotiate the road ahead which had a speed breaker. The cause of the accident was that the petitioner himself drove into the rear portion of the truck. The Court also holds that Ex.PW-2/C, which is the writing executed by the petitioner addressed to the Incharge, Police Chowki, Herbertpur, stating that there is no complaint against the driver of the truck. Reliance placed upon this document by the claimant that it was only for purposes of nonregistration of FIR etc. was rejected by the learned Court below since the claimant was the author of this document, the contents thereof could be used against them. The petition was, therefore, dismissed.

2

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record.

5. I cannot take any different view from the one which has been taken by the learned Tribunal. I hold that the petition has been rightly rejected by the learned Tribunal below. However, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that the petitioner herein be paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- in terms of Section 140(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. This liability shall be borne by the Insurance Company. Appeal is disposed of.

May 23, 2012 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.