Neelam and Others vs Dinesh Dalal and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is claimants'' appeal challenging the award dated 11.10.2007 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, (for short ''the Tribunal'') vide which their claim petition has been dismissed. Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition returning finding on issue no. 1 that the accident is not proved to have been an outcome of rash and negligent driving of motorcycles No. HR-13-B-3203 and HR-13-B-1441 by respondents No. 1 and 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that Vijay Bharti, PW-3 is an eye witness of the occurrence. According to him, his statement is there on the record to prove that the accident has been an outcome of rash and negligent driving of both the motorcycles by respondents No. 1 and 4. According to him, difference in the statements of Vijay Bharti recorded before the police and before learned Tribunal weighed heavily with learned Tribunal and he reached the conclusion that the accident is not proved to be an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid vehicles by respondents No. 1 and 4. In his opinion, the statement made before learned Tribunal was to be relied upon.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 on the other hand, has submitted that the statement of Vijay Bharti, PW-3 is though supporting the claim contained averments, yet the same runs contrary to the statement made by him before the police and, therefore, reliance cannot be placed thereon being afterthought. According to him, as learned Tribunal has found vital changes to have been made by him over his previous statement to circumvent the situation arising out of absence of driving licence and insurance policy.

Vijay Bharti, PW-3, who lodged the FIR, a copy of which is Ex. P-1 has stated therein that respondent No. 1 Dinesh was driving motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-6-SR-2483 and that another motorcycle was being driven by Manish Kumar. In the petition and thereafter before the Tribunal vital changes have been made by Vijay Bharti, PW-3. The first change he made is regarding number of the motorcycle allegedly driven by Dinesh, respondent no. 1. In the statement he told that Dinesh was driving motorcycle No. HR-13B-3203. He has even changed the name of other participant in the occurrence from Manish Kumar to Surender. There is no apparent similarity in the numbers of the motorcycles which were shown to have been driven by Dinesh in the FIR and in the statement made before the Tribunal. Change of one or two letters or digits in the number could be ignored and could be explained by saying that he committed a mistake in noticing the number of the vehicle. Here the number is entirely changed and while in the FIR number is of Delhi, in the statement, the number is of Haryana.

It cannot be said that he did not know the other person involved in the accident. He had clearly mentioned the other participants in the accident to be Manish son of Mahinder Singh r/o H. No. 1878 Sector 6, Bahadurgarh. This description of the other participant in the occurrence would rule out involvement of any other person in the accident and there is no reason why he changed this person for Surender Kumar thereafter.

I agree with learned Tribunal in his comments that it might have come to the knowledge of the claimants that drivers of those motorcycles were not having valid driving licences or the motorcycles were not insured and due to that reason new motorcycles and persons were introduced. So this is a compelling reason to discard the statement of Vijay Bharti, PW-3 and once the statement of Vijay Bharti goes off the record, there remains no evidence to prove that the accident has been an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid two vehicles by respondents No. 1 and 4. Consequently, I find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.