Ishwar Devi and Others vs Darshan Singh and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by the claimants against the award dated 1.2.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, [Fast Track Court], Karnal (for short, ""the Tribunal"") vide which the claim petition filed by the claimants has been dismissed. The

claim petition has been dismissed by learned Tribunal on the finding recorded on issue No. 1 under which the claimants were to prove that the

accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. HR-37- 4032 by Darshan Singh, respondent No. 1. The facts

of the case can be reproduced here. On 20.11.2007 at about 5.15 AM, Gian Chand son of Wadhawa Ram had gone for a morning walk on the

outskirts of village Gheer. When he was near a bridge near Essar Petrol Pump and was on kacha berm of the road, a truck bearing registration

No. HR-37-4032 driven by Darshan Singh, respondent No. 1 came from the side of Karnal. It was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.

Gian Chand was hit on the wrong side of the road as a result of which, he suffered multiple injuries and he succumbed to them at the spot. The

accident was witnessed by Megh Nath and Gian Chand.

Respondents No. 1 and 2 in their joint written statement have asserted that the accident took place due to sole carelessness and negligence of

the deceased himself and that the driver of the offending vehicle was not at fault.

Respondent No. 3, the insurer claimed the claimants and driver and owner of the alleged offending vehicle to be in collusion with each other.

According to him, the FIR was registered after a lapse of 20 days though, the police station was at a stone''s throw from the place of accident.

Framing issues in the case and taking evidence of the parties, learned Tribunal has held under issue No. 1 that the claimants to have failed to

prove the accident to have been caused by respondent No. 1 by driving truck No. HR-37-4032.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that during investigation, the truck driver appeared before the police and he has been facing

trial regarding this accident. According to him, Gian Chand son of Bakhtawar appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and has made a statement

proving this issue. He has further submitted that there was no reason for discarding the statement of Gian Chand.

It has been incorrectly claimed by the insurer that the FIR was lodged after a delay of 20 days. The FIR was lodged by Megh Nath, a brother

of the deceased on the date of accident itself. However, he clearly staled in his statement that he could not notice the number of the truck involved

in the accident and could not see the driver thereof. The lodger of the FIR is said in the document, Ex. PI to have turned his attention towards site

of the accident on hearing the sound of falling of his brother. He claimed that the truck was driven at a fast speed. He no where mentions in his FIR

that Gian Chand son of Bakhtawar examined as PW-2 had also been there at the spot.

Gian Chand [PW-2] has stated that on 20.11.2007, at about 5.15 AM, he had gone to the Petrol Pump to get petrol for his motorcycle and

there he saw the accident. He has stated that at 5.15 AM when the accident took place, there was Sun tight. This fact itself is hard to be believed.

At 5.15 AM on 20.11.2007, there cannot be any Sun light. Therefore, Gian Chand appears to have been introduced as a witness and his

statement has been rightly rejected by learned Tribunal. Had he seen the accident and was in a position to note the details of the truck and its

driver, he should have gone to the place where the deceased was lying and his brother was trying to take care of him and to have told him about

the number of truck involved in the accident and name of its driver. He did not do so and came to the police very late. In these circumstances,

when the driver of the truck walked into the police station telling that he was driver of the offending truck, it can only be inferred that he was

colluding with the claimants. The aforesaid discussion clearly shows that the findings of learned Tribunal are most reasonable and appropriate in the

circumstances of the case. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.