Himachal Pradesh High Court
CIVIL APPEAL None on 31 December 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Issues
FAO 144 of 2006.
31.12.2009 Present: Mr.
Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Janesh Gupta, counsel for the appellant.
the
Mr. Arun Verma, counsel for respondent No. 1.
Mr. B.M.Chauhan, counsel for respondent No. 2.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. I am not going into the merits of the respective contentions of the parties on the number of points urged by them.
Issue No. 1 as framed by the
learned Tribunal is whether the petitioner suffered injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 1. Learned Tribunal, after cursory examination of the statements of witnesses PW-2 and PW-3, holds that the truck was not involved in the accident. For reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal refers to a few so called contradictions in the statements of the witnesses which are to the effect whether the accident was a head on collision or the offending vehicle struck from the back. FIR Ex.PW-4/A narrates that the vehicles were coming from opposite directions.
In order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the petition is maintainable or not, the Tribunal had to come to a definite finding as to whether the truck was involved in the accident or not. The petition could not be thrown out merely on the ground of some contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, which would but be natural, in a case of accident which is a traumatic experience both for the person involved in the accident and for the witnesses. The learned Tribunal has acted in a slip shod manner and I cannot persuade myself to sustain its findings. In order to rely upon the contradictions destroying the intrinsic worth of the evidence, they have to be of such a nature as to destroy the very foundation of the examination in chief. Without adding anything further, the case is remanded to the learned District Judge, Solan who shall either try the case himself or assign it to the Fast Track Court, as may be deemed fit by him. The judgment in appeal is set aside. The learned District Judge shall readmit the appeal on record and proceed to decide the case in accordance with law. The Court shall come to its conclusion totally uninfluenced by any observations which have been made by this Court. Parties shall appear before the learned District Judge on 22.2.2010. Needless to say that the learned Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the entire case within a period of six months from the date when the parties first put in appearance before that Court. Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications shall stand disposed of.
December 31, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.