Pushpa Aggarwal vs Sh. Krishna Kumar and Others

Jaswant Singh, J.—Appellant/claimant-Pushpa Aggarwal is aggrieved by the order dated 21st May, 1993 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short "the Tribunal") whereby her claim petition under Sections 166, 140, 141 and 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident, was dismissed. Briefly noticed the facts of the present case are that appellant Pushpa Aggarwal filed a claim petition alleging therein that on 22nd October, 1991 she boarded a three wheeler No. HR 07 7435 (offending vehicle) from Mohan Nagar Chowk, Kurukshetra for going to Pipli and then from Pipli to Ladwa. It was further alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1 Krishan Kumar at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and that at 8.30 a.m. when they reached near Rest House located on Pipli-Kurukshetra Road, Pipli, respondent No. 1 suddenly applied brakes as a result of which the offending vehicle turned turtle and in this accident the appellant suffered multiple injuries on her person and also suffered fracture of the left ankle. A daily diary report No. 26 dated 23rd October, 1981 (Ext. P3) was lodged with PS Sadar Thanesar in this regard. It was stated that the said DDR be read as a part of her claim petition. On these allegations the claimant/appellant claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/- against the respondents.

Upon notice respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed a joint written statement refuting the claim of the appellant/claimant. It was stated by them that on 22nd October, 1991 another three wheeler bearing No. HYK 4299 driven by one Babu Ram had met with an accident near Pipli in which a few passengers including the claimant received injuries and that the matter was compromised as said three wheeler No. HYK 4299 was not insured. It was further stated in the reply that 3-4 days after the accident said Babu Ram, driver of three wheeler bearing No. HYK 4299 had approached respondent No. 2 Yash Pal (owner of offending vehicle) to show him the registration certificate as well insurance of the offending vehicle as he wanted to get insurance of his three wheeler (HYK 4299). The said documents were returned to respondent No. 2 after sometime. It was thus alleged that claimant/appellant in collusion with said Babu Ram had filed the claim petition.

Respondent No. 3-being Insurer of the offending vehicle filed separate written statement denying the involvement of the offending vehicle. It was alleged that in the DDR No. 26 dated 23rd October, 1991 (Ext. P3) there was no mention of the offending vehicle/name of the driver-respondent No. 1 and that the claim petition had been filed with a concocted version to extort money from the Insurance Company.

On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Parties led evidence in support of their respective pleas. The learned Tribunal after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant vide impugned order dated 21st May, 1993. Hence, the present appeal.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant that learned Tribunal has erred in discarding the testimony of the claimant and giving undue weightage to DDR (Ext. P3).

After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The claimant/appellant in the claim petition has stated that in respect of the accident in question DDR No. 26 dated 23rd October, 1991 (Ext. P3) was lodged in PS Sadar, Thanesar and that the same be read as a part of the claim petition. The learned Tribunal has noticed that as per DDR (Ext. P3) on 22nd October, 1991 at about 8.30 a.m. the claimant was going in the three wheeler towards Pipli and when the three wheeler reached near the Rest House, suddenly one calf came running on the road in front of the three wheeler and the driver of the three wheeler in order to save the calf applied brakes as a result of which the three wheeler turned turtle. It has been further noticed by the Tribunal that in the said DDR it has been clearly mentioned that the accident had happened suddenly and as such no one was at fault. However, during her testimony in the Court, claimant suppressed the story as given in DDR (Ext. P3) and instead deposed that her signatures were obtained on blank papers. The veracity of her version given in Court was discarded by the learned Tribunal after scrutinising the other attending circumstances available on record. It was found by the learned Tribunal that immediately after the accident the appellant was taken to hospital by Baljit Singh (PW 2) and thereafter, brother of the appellant had also reached the hospital, but still no report of the incident was lodged either by Baljit Singh or by the brother of the claimant/appellant. It was further noticed by the learned Tribunal that the DDR (Ext. P3) was lodged after 30 hours of the accident and therein too the driver of the offending vehicle was exonerated. In these circumstances it has rightly been held by the learned Tribunal that it is not a case where the claimant was under shock and had no assistance of her close relations. It was also noticed by the learned Tribunal that though claimant had asserted that she had filed a representation before Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, but she failed to produce copy of said representation before the learned Tribunal.

While reaching at the aforesaid conclusion the learned Tribunal has noticed that Baljit Singh (PW 4) who took the appellant to hospital nowhere stated that at the time of accident Krishan Chand, respondent No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle rather it was his stand that Krishan Chand had come to hospital with other persons. It was further admitted by Baljit Singh PW 4 that he never met the police as the police did not come there during his stay in the hospital and he had disclosed the number of the offending vehicle to the claimant. From the testimony of Baljit Singh PW 4, it has rightly been inferred by the learned Tribunal that claimant was aware about the number of the offending vehicle yet she did not state the same while recording DDR Ext. P3. As regards the presence of the brother of the appellant at the hospital, it has been noticed by the Tribunal that he had never approached the police and, thus, he was introduced in order to support the case of the claimant-appellant.

Thus, in view of the detailed scrutiny of the evidence, the learned Tribunal, by discarding the testimony of appellant/claimant, rightly held that the evidence brought on record is in direct contradiction with the pleadings and as such the claim of the appellant was not maintainable. For the reasons stated above, finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed.