Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Display - PDF - 2024-05-07T134649.295
Display - PDF - 2024-05-07T134649.295
Display - PDF - 2024-05-07T134649.295
Presented on : 09-01-2020
Registered on : 09-01-2020
Decided on : 23-11-2023
…….Claimants/Petitioners.
Versus
…...........Respondents.
Amarinder Singh Grewal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala, UID No.PB0037
Kuldip Kaur etc. Vs. Harmandeep Singh and another Page No. 2
AWARD
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as “MV
alongwith his wife, minor daughter and brother had gone to see the
Kaur, minor daughter and brother of Ranjit Singh were to stay at the
spot and he (Ranjit Singh) started for going towards Kala Sanghian.
speed and in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing any
horn came from Jalandhar side and hit the motorcycle of Ranjit
Amarinder Singh Grewal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala, UID No.PB0037
Kuldip Kaur etc. Vs. Harmandeep Singh and another Page No. 3
accident, Ranjit Singh fell on the road and he received multiple and
submitted that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent
Amarinder Singh Grewal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala, UID No.PB0037
Kuldip Kaur etc. Vs. Harmandeep Singh and another Page No. 4
not maintainable in the present form as earlier the claimants had filed
the same petition in which no evidence was led by the parties and
rights from the Lok Adalat vide order dated 14.12.2019 passed by
Sh. Raman Kumar, the then Presiding Officer, National Lok Adalat,
file the present claim petition; claimants are estopped by their own
act and conduct, omission and commission to file the present petition
and the claimants have not come to the court with clean hands and
Singh was not doing any work at all and was unemployed. A false
case has been registered against the respondent No.1, in which the
Amarinder Singh Grewal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala, UID No.PB0037
Kuldip Kaur etc. Vs. Harmandeep Singh and another Page No. 5
clean hands and have suppressed the material facts from the court;
parties; the alleged vehicle in question was not insured at the time of
0217 was not having any valid and effective driving licence and the
the respondents No.1 and 2. After denying all the contents of the
framed:-
Amarinder Singh Grewal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala, UID No.PB0037
Kuldip Kaur etc. Vs. Harmandeep Singh and another Page No. 6
CLAIMANTS EVIDENCE:
for the claimants got examined claimant No.1 Kuldip Kaur widow of
RESPONDENTS EVIDENCE
Amarinder Singh Grewal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala, UID No.PB0037
Kuldip Kaur etc. Vs. Harmandeep Singh and another Page No. 7
ISSUES No.1 to 8
The onus to prove issues no.1 and 2 was upon claimants, whereas
the same version regarding the manner in which the accident took
Kuldip Kaur being author of the FIR no.78 dated 11.06.2017 proved
and owner of the offending vehicle have not stepped into the witness
box to depose as per the defence taken in their written statement and
Amarinder Singh Grewal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala, UID No.PB0037
Kuldip Kaur etc. Vs. Harmandeep Singh and another Page No. 8
in this manner left the battle ground open for the claimants and thus
him in terms of Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act in view of
actually not responsible for the accident, but he has not dared to
Moreover, this Tribunal is of the view that CW1 Kuldip Kaur had no
case. Rather this Tribunal is of the view that in case respondent no.1
had felt that he was falsely implicated in this case, he was at liberty
but respondent no.1 never did so. Thus in the given circumstances, it
R-0217.
respondents No.1 and 2, they had submitted that earlier the claimants
had filed the claim petition but the same was withdrawn by them in
Amarinder Singh Grewal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala, UID No.PB0037
Kuldip Kaur etc. Vs. Harmandeep Singh and another Page No. 9
Tribunal which shows that earlier the present claimants had filed the
claim petition No.50 dated 04.08.2017 and the matter was taken up
the statement suffered by learned counsel for the claimants, the claim
withdrawn before the National Lok Adalat and the claimants never
reserved any right for filing the fresh claim petition, as such, this
Tribunal feels that the claim petition in the given circumstances is not
that any fraud was played upon them nor they have disclosed the fact
petition.
15) For all that has been discussed herein above, all the
respondents.
Amarinder Singh Grewal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala, UID No.PB0037
Kuldip Kaur etc. Vs. Harmandeep Singh and another Page No. 10
CNR No.PBKP010002742021
MACP No.07/2021
ARUN SUBGOTRA
"I attest tothe accuracy and authenticity
of this document."
2023.11.24 16:15:57 +0530
Amarinder Singh Grewal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala, UID No.PB0037