Gulabi & Others v. Ram Swaroop @ Ramswarup & Others

Order

::: 11/11/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Vinay Mathur, Counsel for the Claimant-appellants Mr. Ram Singh Rathore, Counsel for the Respondents By the Court : *** Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the award of the learned Tribunal. These two claim petitions, arise out of one accident

in which two persons namely; (i) Padam Singh son of Shri Mor Singh and (ii) Heera Singh son of Shri Ladu Singh died. The said accident occurred in the mid-night of 2nd/3rd May, 1996, 2 near Ajmer, involving a Truck bearing registration No.RSG 8978, which was owned by the respondent No.2 (Gulshan Lal son of Shri Chunni Lal Khatri of Bharat Goods Transport Company, Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur. Since, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal bearing No.827 of 2000 has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased Heera Lal and S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal bearing No.11 of 2000 has been filed by Smt. Basanti Devi and Others, who are the legal representatives of deceased Padam Singh, therefore, the learned Tribunal decided both the claims, as filed by Smt. Gulabi and others and Smt. Basanti and others by a common award dated 12.02.1999 and dismissed the claims in both the cases. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claims by the award dated 12.02.2009, these two miscellaneous appeals have been preferred separately by the claimants before this Court. Facts, in brief, are that as per the claim, deceased Padam Singh was the second driver on the aforesaid vehicle i.e. Truck bearing No.RSG 8978 and Heera Singh deceased was the Khalasi on the said vehicle, owned by the respondent No.2 - Gulshan Lal. The vehicle was insured with the respondent No.3 – The New India Insurance Company Limited. At the time of accident the vehicle was being driven by the respondent No.1 Ram Swaroop. The vehicle was carrying vegetables (peas) from Ajmer to Ahamadabad. 3 The learned Tribunal dismissed both the claims on the ground that it was not proved that the deceased Padam Singh was the driver and Heera was the Khalasi injured, on the said vehicle employed by the owner of the vehicle Gulshan Lal (respondent No.2). In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal exonerated both the owner as well as insurance company of their liability. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has contended that the learned Tribunal has committed a serious error of law in not appreciating the pleadings of the parties, where the respondent No.2, the owner of the vehicle has not denied the averments made by the claimants in the claim petition in respect of their being employed as driver and khalasi respectively. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel that the respondent No.2 that Gulshan Lal, the owner of the vehicle did not appear in the witness-box to deny the aforesaid averments and the insurance company, which contested the claim also did not lead any evidence. He, therefore, submits that the only evidence on record was unrebuttled evidence of the claimants and the learned Tribunal has committed a serious error of law in disbelieving the same on mere conjunctures and surmises. 4 The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 – The New India Insurance Company Limited, on the otherhand, has supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal and the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the present case that the appellant has failed to prove that the deceased Padam Singh was the driver and Heera was the Khalasi on the said vehicle. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. With a view to appreciate the aforesaid contentions, it is necessary to take into account the pleadings of the parties. In the claim petition, in Para No.10 of the claim petition, which is in the prescribed form , it has been stated by the claimants as follows :- ''

10. (cid:465)दनांक 2:3.5.1986 क(cid:551) म(cid:218)य रा(cid:466)ऽ को यू.पी.अजमेर शा(cid:219)सपोट(cid:91) से शक सं(cid:201)या आर.एस.जी.8978 जो (cid:465)क अजमेर से अहमदाबाद मटर क(cid:551) बो(cid:464)रयां लेकर जा रह(cid:547) थी म(cid:581) पदम साइवर तथा मृतक ौी ह(cid:547)रा जो शक पर मजदर(cid:547) का काय(cid:91) करता था तथा लाड िसंह व अ(cid:219)य आदमी - उ(cid:416) शक म(cid:581) बैठकर रवाना हए। उ(cid:416) शक को अूाथ(cid:568) सं(cid:201)या 1 साइवर राम ःव(cid:510)प उफ(cid:91) राम(cid:510)प चला रहा था। उ(cid:416) शक पर दो साइवर भेजे गये थे तथा दो ह(cid:547) खलासी मजदर थे (cid:468)जसम(cid:581) से एक मजदर मृतक ौी ह(cid:547)रा था। जब उ(cid:416) शक अजमेर शहर के बाहर िनकला तो अूाथ(cid:568) सं(cid:201)या-1 ने शक बहत तेज र(cid:221)तार से चलाना शु(cid:510) कर (cid:465)दया था तथा शक काफ(cid:551) तेज व लहराती हई चल रह(cid:547) थी -1 साइवर को शक धीरे (cid:468)जस पर लाड िसंह ने अूाथ(cid:568) सं(cid:201)या ू ू ु ू ू ु ु ू 5 चलाने को कहा, मगर उसने कहा (cid:465)क मुझे ज(cid:227)द(cid:547) है, शक ऐसे ह(cid:547) चलाऊं गा। शक सराधना से आगे सराड(cid:547) मगर(cid:547) के पास पहंचा जहां रोड़ का काम चल रहा था, उ(cid:416) शक (cid:207)यादा तेज र(cid:221)तार म(cid:581) होने के कारण अूाथ(cid:568) सं(cid:201)या-1 साइवर उ(cid:416) शक स(cid:224)भाल नह(cid:547)ं सका व रोड़ के बांयी तरफ एक नीम के पेड़ से टकराता हआु पलट(cid:547) खा गया (cid:468)जससे मृतक ह(cid:547)रा पुऽ स(cid:227)ला, तथा पदम शक म(cid:581) भर(cid:547) हई मटर क(cid:551) बो(cid:464)रय(cid:585) के नीचे दब गये तथा अूाथ(cid:568) सं(cid:201)या-1 शक क(cid:551) के (cid:466)बन से िनकलकर, शक को घटना ःथल पर ह(cid:547) छोड़कर भाग गया। उ(cid:416) दघ(cid:91)टना अूाथ(cid:568) सं(cid:201)या -1 (cid:430)ारा शक को गफलत, '' तेज र(cid:221)तार एवं लापरवाह(cid:547) से चलाने के कारण घ(cid:465)टत हई।ु In reply to the aforesaid averments, the owner of the vehicle – respondent No.2 – Gulshan Lal filed his reply and in Para No.12, which is reply to Para No.10 of the claim petition, it is stated as follows :

12. यह (cid:465)क ूाथ(cid:91)ना पऽ क(cid:551) चरण सं(cid:201)या-10 म(cid:581) (cid:468)जस ूकार से त(cid:216)य अं(cid:465)कत (cid:465)कये गये ह(cid:583) ःवीकार नह(cid:547)ं है के वल इतना ह(cid:547) ःवीकार है (cid:465)क उ(cid:416) वाहन दघ(cid:91)टना म(cid:581) नीचे दब जाने -1 क(cid:551) से मृ(cid:215)यु हइ थी ले(cid:465)कन उ(cid:416) द(cid:203)ट(cid:91)ना अूाथ(cid:568) सं(cid:201)या लापरवाह(cid:547) से नह(cid:547)ं हई थी। In the end, it was pleaded by the respondents that in case there is any liability, the insurer of the vehicle – the New India Insurance Company Limited alone is liable for the payment of compensation. ु ु ु ु ु ु ु 6 As has been noticed above, the only evidence, which has been led is from the side of the claimants and the respondents, the driver, the owner and the insurance company have chosen not lead any evidence in support of their respective stand. It may be stated here, however, that the respondent No.3 – the New India Insurance Company Limited filed a detailed reply, wherein Para No.4, it was interalia stated as follows :-

4. यह (cid:465)क ूाथ(cid:91)ना पऽ क(cid:551) चरण सं(cid:201)या-10 म(cid:581) व(cid:468)ण(cid:91)त दघ(cid:91)टना के त(cid:216)य िम(cid:216)या एवं आधारह(cid:547)न होने से पूण(cid:91)तया अःवीकार ह(cid:583), (cid:468)ज(cid:219)ह(cid:581) आवेदकगण स(cid:162)म व सबल साआय से ःवयं ःथा(cid:466)पत कर(cid:581)। (cid:466)वक(cid:227)प के उ(cid:419)रदाता का कथन है (cid:465)क आरो(cid:466)पत दध(cid:91)टना स(cid:224)ब(cid:468)(cid:219)धत त(cid:216)य(cid:585) के स(cid:224)ब(cid:219)ध म(cid:581) वाहन मािलक के ू(cid:215)यु(cid:419)र से कोई नया त(cid:216)य ूकट होने पर उ(cid:419)रदाता बीमा क(cid:224)पनी इस ूबम पर ःवयं के बचाव से संशोिधत जवाब भ(cid:466)वंय म(cid:581) ूःतुत करने का अपना अिधकार सुर(cid:468)(cid:162)त रखती है। उ(cid:419)रदाता का कथन है (cid:465)क बीमा पॉिलसी के अनुसार शक सं(cid:201)या आर एस जी 8978 पर दो साइवर एवं एक (cid:200)लीनर िनयु(cid:416) (cid:465)कया जा सकता था, (cid:468)जनक(cid:551) ''(cid:464)रःक'' का ूीिमयम इनँयोड(cid:91) (cid:430)ारा बीमा क(cid:224)पनी को अदा (cid:465)कया गया था और उ(cid:416) ''इ(cid:219)ँयोड(cid:91) '' (cid:430)ारा िनयो(cid:468)जत दो साइवर एवं एक (cid:200)लीनर क(cid:551) मृ(cid:215)यु अथवा आहत होने पर ह(cid:547) िसफ(cid:91) उ(cid:419)दाता बीमा क(cid:224)पनी कोई ूितकार क(cid:551) रािश अदा करने को उ(cid:419)रदायी हो सकती है। ूःतुत ूकरण म(cid:581) ूाथ(cid:568)गण (cid:430)ारा (cid:200)लेम ूाथ(cid:91)ना ु ु 7 पऽ के त(cid:216)य(cid:585) म(cid:581) ूितकार क(cid:551) रािश ूा(cid:431) करने हेतु यह िम(cid:216)या एवं मनगढ(cid:219)त त(cid:216)य ूकट (cid:465)कये ह(cid:583) (cid:465)क मृतक ह(cid:547)रा शक के माल के साथ जा रहा था, जब(cid:465)क दघ(cid:91)टना से स(cid:224)ब(cid:468)(cid:219)धत थाना मांगिलया वास पर शक का साथी व प(cid:464)रवाद(cid:547)कता(cid:91) ौी लाडिसंह (cid:430)ारा यह स(cid:215)यता अिभकिथत क(cid:551) है (cid:465)क मृतक ौी ह(cid:547)रा व अ(cid:219)य (cid:229)य(cid:466)(cid:416) ौी पदम िसंह पुऽ मोटा उसके साथ (cid:466)बना (cid:465)कसी ूयोजन के उ(cid:416) शक म(cid:581) ःवयं क(cid:551) इ(cid:205)छा से सवार हो गये थे व आरो(cid:466)पत दघ(cid:91)टना घ(cid:465)टत होने से उसक(cid:551) मृ(cid:215)यु घटनाःथल पर हो गयी थी। उ(cid:416) ूथम सूचना म(cid:581) लाड िसंह ने ःप(cid:436) (cid:510)प से अिभकिथत (cid:465)कया है (cid:465)क उ(cid:416) शक के साइवर के घटना ःथल से फरार होने के उपरा(cid:219)त राःते के शक साइवर(cid:585) क(cid:551) मदद से उसके दोन(cid:585) सािथय(cid:585), मृतकगण ह(cid:547)रा व पदमा व शक के िनयो(cid:468)जत आहत खलासी को भी बो(cid:464)रय(cid:585) के नीचे से िनकाला गया था। ूाथ(cid:568)गण ने उ(cid:416) चरण म(cid:581) (cid:465)कसी ःथान पर मृतक को शक सं(cid:201)या आर एस जी 8978 का खालासी, (cid:465)कसी ःथान पर ''मजदरू '' व (cid:465)कसी ःथान पर ''खलासी मजदरू '' होना ूकट (cid:465)कया है, जब(cid:465)क उ(cid:416) त(cid:216)य पूण(cid:91)तया मनगढ(cid:219)त , िम(cid:216)या एवं आधारह(cid:547)न है, अत: उ(cid:419)रदाता का ःप(cid:436) कथन है (cid:465)क मृतक (cid:465)कसी भी हालत म(cid:581) बीमा क(cid:224)पनी क(cid:551) पॉलीसी (cid:430)ारा ''कवड(cid:91)'' नह(cid:547)ं था शक सं(cid:201)या आर एस जी 8978 का बीमा माल ढोने के िलए (cid:465)कया हआ था एवं इ(cid:219)ँयोड(cid:91) (cid:430)ारा िनयु(cid:416) दो साइवर एवं एक (cid:200)लीनर { गाड(cid:547) क(cid:551) सफाई आ(cid:465)द करने वाला} के अलावा (cid:465)कसी (cid:229)य(cid:466)(cid:416) का उ(cid:416) शक म(cid:581) याऽा करना िन(cid:466)ष(cid:424) था, य(cid:465)द उ(cid:416) ूकार से बीमा पॉिलसी क(cid:551) शत(cid:607) के (cid:466)व(cid:510)(cid:424) व मोटर (cid:229)ह(cid:547)कल ए(cid:200)ट के ूावधान(cid:585) के (cid:466)व(cid:510)(cid:424) कोई (cid:229)य(cid:466)(cid:416) ःवयं क(cid:551) इ(cid:205)छा से ऐसे वाहन से सफर करता है तो वह ःवयं क(cid:551) (cid:468)ज(cid:224)मेदार(cid:547) एवं ''(cid:464)रःक'' पर ह(cid:547) ऐसा करता है। In the witness-box, the claimants have appeared as PW-1 Smt. Basanti and PW-2 Smt. Gulabi. ु ू ु ू ु 8 PW-1 Smt.Basanti has categorically stated that her husband Padam Singh was the driver of the truck and was employed by the respondent No.2 – Gulshan Lal, the owner of the vehicle as a driver. The aforesaid statement could not be shaken in the cross-examination. Similarly, PW-2 Smt. Gulabi, the wife of deceased Heera, who appeard in the witness-box clearly stated that her husband died, as a result of the accident and that he was working as a Khalasi on the truck. On a suggestion that he was employed as a labour on the truck, she clearly denied the said suggestion and stated that “MERA AADMI US TRUCK PAR MAZDOORI NAHI KARTA THA, BALKI KHALASI KA KAAM KARTA THA. So far as the statements of both these witnesses are concerned, they are consistent and both have clearly deposed that their husbands Padam Singh and Heera were employed as driver and Khalasi on the truck, in question and were in the employment with the respondent No.2 -Gulshan Lal. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 – The New India Insurance Company Limited, on the otherhand, submitted that in the F.I.R. (Exhibit-1) lodged by PW-3 Ladu Singh, it has not been stated that the deceased were the driver and the cleaner (Khalasi) on the said vehicle. On the contrary, it has been mentioned that two of his 9 companions, who were also travelling in the vehicle have died as a result of the accident. He, therefore, contends that on the basis of the averments made in Exhibit-1 F.I.R. the contention that the deceased were driver and cleaner (Khalasi) stand rebutted. So far as the above contention is concerned, the statement of PW-3 Ladu Singh has to be read as a whole. PW- 3 Ladu Singh has clearly stated that Padam Singh was the driver and Heera was the Khalasi on the truck bearing No.RSG

8978. He has also stated that he too is a truck driver. Padam Singh and Heera were employed as driver and Khalasi of the aforesaid vehicle, which was filled with vegetables (peas) and were proceedings from Ajmer to Ahamadabad and he took a lift in the same, along with them as he knew them. So far as the averments made in the F.I.R. are concerned, he has clearly explained that Padam Singh was the driver and Heera was the Khalasi on the truck, in question. He also denied the suggestion that he was a passenger for hire or reward and has stated that since he knew Heera and Padam Singh, he had taken a lift in the said vehicle. Apart from these three witnesses, no direct evidence has been led by the respondents. A perusal of the pleadings, which have been quoted here-in-above, more particularly the reply of the owner of the vehicle Gulshan Lal, the respondent No.2, it become clear that 10 the averments made in the petition with regard to the deceased being employees of Gulshan, employed as driver and Khalasi on the vehicle belonging to the respondent No.2 - Gulshan Lal have not been denied by the owner of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle was the best person, who could have denied this fact. As this fact was especially within the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle. As per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proving a fact especially within knowledge of such person lies on the person, who has that special knowledge. Since, the respondent No.2 has not denied the aforesaid fact regarding the deceased being in the employment of the respondent No.2, more particularly when the respondent No.2 has appeared and filed a written-statement, which is available on record, the respondent No.3 cannot travel beyond the aforesaid plea and contend otherwise without leading direct evidence and entering the witness-box. It may be stated here that the present case, arises under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, where the provisions of such Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not available. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, which was misread by the learned Tribunal, I am inclined to reverse the findings on Issue No.3 given by the learned Tribunal and hold that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal with 11 regard to the deceased Padam Sngh not being second driver and Heera deceased being Khalasi to be contrary to record and are, therefore, set aside. Having held that the deceased Padam Singh was the driver and Heera was the Khalasi on the vehicle bearing registration No.RSG 8978 owned by the respondent No.2 – Gulshan Lal, which was covered by a valid policy of insurance at the time of the accident and in which admittedly the insurance company had taken a premium as per the averments made in their reply for covering the risk of two drivers and the Khalasi, the insurance company, the respondent No.3 is liable for the payment of compensation in both these claim petitions for the death of the driver and khalasi, Padam Singh and Heera. Consequently, both these miscellaneous appeals stand allowed. The claimants would be entitled to the award of compensation, as determined by the learned Tribunal in claim case No.01/1998 (125/1986) filed by Smt.Basanti Devi and Others for the death of driver Padam Singh, which has been quantified as Rs.1,90,520/- by the learned Tribunal with with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim i.e.

29.09.1986 up to the date of its realization. So far as the claim No.126/1986 filed by Smt. Gulabi and others in respect of death of Heera (Khalasi) is concerned, the appellants should be entitled to get the amount 12 assessed by the learned Tribunal of Rs.1,84,200/- with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim i.e. 29.09.1986 up to the date of its realization. Both these miscellaneous appeals stand allowed to the extent as aforesaid. There will be no order as to costs. ashok/ (Dalip Singh), J.