Multani and Others vs Pritam Singh and Another

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The challenge in appeal here is to the denial of compensation to the claimants on account of the finding that no negligence could be attributed to the driver of the bus with which the accident occurred.

Vijay Pal Verma was crossing the road on his cycle when he was run over and killed by the bus DLP 435 which came from the side of Delhi. This happened on March 26, 1978, at about 10.30 a.m. on the Panipat-Delhi road. As mentioned earlier the finding of the Tribunal was that the accident had not been caused on account of any rash or negligent driving of the bus driver. The claimants, who are the parents and other relations of Vijay Pal Verma deceased, were consequently not awarded any compensation.

The case of the claimants rests upon the testimony of PW 1 Jai Singh and PW 2 Sahib Singh, who claimed to have seen the accident. According to them, the deceased had crossed the road and had reached the other side of it when the bus went to its wrong side of the road and hit into him. The Tribunal did not rely upon the testimony of either of these witnesses and reading of their testimony would show that the Tribunal cannot be faulted here. It would be seen that neither of these witnesses was cited as witness for the prosecution in the criminal case instituted against the bus driver arising out of this accident, nor were their names mentioned in the First Information Report which was recorded at the spot on the statement of another eye-witness. PW 5 Head Constable Ishwar Singh admitted PW 1 Jai Singh was a person interested in the deceased. He himself deposed to his intimate relations with the grandfather of the deceased. Yet, it is significant to note that he could not say on what part of the body, the deceased had sustained injuries, nor did he care to inform the parents of the deceased of this occurrence. Both these witnesses no doubt stated that the police had recorded their statements, but there is no evidence on record to corroborate this No police official has been examined in this behalf, nor were their statements placed on record.

The most important testimony here is that of PW 5 Head Constable Ishwar Singh, who was on duty at the nearby bus stop when this accident occurred. According to him, the deceased was trying to cross the road and the bus driver was blowing the horn. The driver did his utmost to avoid the accident and in this effort the bus went and struck against a tree on the right side of the road. He further deposed that it was he who immediately lodged a report at Police Station Samalkha, and it was on the basis of his statement that First Information Report Exh. PY was recorded. There can be no manner of doubt that he was a wholly independent witness. There is no material on record to show any interest or bias on his part towards any party here. The Tribunal thus rightly relied upon his testimony and absolved the bus driver from blame.

Counsel for the claimants sought to lay great stress upon the fact that when the bus driver RW 1 Pritam Singh came into the witness box, he came forth with a new plea, namely, that the deceased had struck against some other bus and not his bus. No such plea had been raised by the bus driver in his written statement. This circumstance cannot, however, advance the claimants'' case, as the burden primarily lies on the claimants to show that the accident had been caused due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, or, at any rate, such negligence stands spelt out by an overall view of the evidence on record. This is clearly not the case here.

The finding of the Tribunal that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver in this accident thus warrants no interference in appeal.

This appeal is accordingly hereby dismissed. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.