Anita and Others vs Narender Singh and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is claimants'' appeal against dismissal of the claim petition vide award dated 27.07.2011 by learned Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short ''the Tribunal''), on the ground that the accident is not proved to have taken place due to rash and

negligent driving of car No. HR 12L-7056 by respondent No. 1 - Narender Singh. Anita, Rohit and Ved Kaur, the claimants claiming themselves

to be dependents of Sukhbir Singh, the deceased claimed that on 01.05.2010 at about 7.30 P.M. Sukhbir Singh, the deceased was coming

towards Rohtak from Gohana on motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-8SAK-0950. He was driving the same at a moderate speed. Pritam and

Har Gian were travelling on another motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-11C-5788. When they crossed village Rukhi and were near

cremation ground of the village they saw Sukhbir coming on a motorcycle from Gohana. They also saw a car No. HR-12L-7056 driven by

respondent No. 1 coming from the side of Gohana in a rash and negligent manner. The car had hit the motorcycle of Sukhbir Singh. Respondents

No. 1 and 2 have claimed in their written statement that the accident has been a result of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by Sukhbir

Singh.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that Pritam and Har Gian although saw the accident and have deposed about the same, yet

learned Tribunal has misconstrued the evidence. According to him, Pritam had stated that he asked the injured about his identity and he disclosed

his identity. According to him, this sentence of the statement of Pritam has been taken by the Tribunal as implying that Pritam had inquired from the

car driver about his identity, which he disclosed before running away and had Pritam Singh known the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal

is said to have concluded therefrom that the identity of the car driver would have been disclosed in the FIR and the FIR would not have been there

without number of the car and name of the driver.

It is a case where the Tribunal has concluded collusion to be there between the claimants and driver, owner of the offending car. It is true, as is

evident from the statement of Pritam that he asked the injured and the injured disclosed his identity. This is the only meaning that can be attached to

his statement and, therefore, learned Tribunal has been not correct in concluding that the driver of the offending car was asked and he disclosed his

identity before fleeing from the spot. However still the finding of learned Tribunal cannot be reversed. The FIR is silent about the number and name

of driver of the offending car. Pritam lodged the FIR saying that the car number would be given by Har Gian. First of all, when Pritam and Har

Gian were together, they could have noticed or tailed to do so the number of the offending car together. It was not possible that one of them would

have been able to notice the number of the offending car. However, believing that Har Gian alone succeeded in noticing the number of the car, his

statement was recorded by the police 16 days after the occurrence and it clearly shows that the police and Har Gian were trying to find out a

suitable vehicle, the driver of whom with the vehicle could be roped in this accident case. For 16 days, number of the offending car could not come

before the police and it clearly shows that Har Gian was also not knowing the number of the car and that the car in question has been roped in just

to succeed in the claim case.

Learned Tribunal was, thus, not unjustified in holding that there is collusion between the claimants and the owner driver of the vehicle. Learned

Tribunal has, thus, rightly decided issue No. 1 against the claimants. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the

judgment of learned Tribunal. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.