Radhika Devi vs Technocrats

Lisa Gill, J.—Despite the case having been called thrice, none has put in appearance on behalf of the appellants. The present appeal is taken up for hearing on merits.

This appeal has been filed by the appellants who are the legal heirs of the deceased-Baij Nath challenging the award dated 05.05.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal'') whereby their claim has been rejected on the ground that the claimants have failed to prove that Baij Nath died due to an accident caused by respondent No. 2 while driving his car in a rash and negligent manner on 19.09.1997.

The claimants averred that on 19.07.1997 at about 7.00 PM, the deceased-Baij Nath alongwith one Ram Dheeraj was going on a bicycle to village Behlana. Ram Dheeraj was riding the bicycle while Baij Nath was sitting on the carrier. When their bicycle was about to take a turn towards village Behlana near the Airport Chowk at Chandigarh-Ambala road, a Premier Padmini Fiat car bearing registration No. CH01-A-7077 came from behind and hit the cyclists. Both of them received injuries and were removed to Sector 32 Hospital, Chandigarh where Baij Nath succumbed to the injuries. The deceased is stated to have been working as a Tailor, earning Rs. 4,000/- per month and a compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal while deciding Issue No. 1 returned a finding against the claimants to the effect that the accident on 19.07.1997 in which Baij Nath received fatal injuries was not caused by the car No. CH01-A-7077.

The Tribunal has returned this finding on the ground that there is discrepancy in the statements of PW1 and PW2 and the presence of PW2 at the spot has been doubted. The colour of the car has been mentioned as white in the FIR No. 45 dated 19.07.1997 whereas, the colour of the car belonging to the respondent was cosmic i.e., dark grey and the police has sent the case for cancellation being untraced.

In the grounds of appeal the impugned award has been assailed on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly held that there is discrepancy in statements of PW1 and PW2. It is also stated in the grounds that PW1-Ram Dheeraj has stated before the Tribunal that he had given the number of the car to the police. In view of the same, if the police did not record the same especially keeping in view the fact that the contents of the FIR were not read out to PW1, this fact cannot be held against the claimants. The colour and the description of the car had rightly been given by the said witness and the Tribunal has recorded an incorrect finding. Further the selling of the said vehicle by the owner in March, 1999 also proves mala fide intention and proves that the car in question was involved in the accident.

Having gone through the record of this case, it is apparent that the FIR No. 45 dated 19.07.1997 was registered on the basis of the statement of Ram Dheeraj, PW1. A perusal of the statement of Ram Dheeraj on 19.07.1997, Ex. P1 (DDR No. 45) reveals that he has stated that he could not note down the number of the car which caused the accident. No description, whatsoever, of the car has been given in the said statement. In cross-examination, this witness (PW1) admits that he had obtained the copy of the FIR after about 15/20 days but he still did not notice the contents of the FIR. He did not remember the colour of the car and neither he could identify the driver. It is a matter of record that no action was taken when the said FIR was recommended to be cancelled and neither did they proceed against the non-inclusion of alleged details of the car and the driver, which are alleged to have been given. PW2-Tej Singh, who alleges to be present at the time of the accident described the colour of the offending car as white though he could not reveal the number of the said car. He described the driver of the offending car having bulky body wearing spectacles.

Respondents have led positive evidence to show that the claimants have wrongly given the said number because the claimants were aware that this particular Fiat car was lying parked on his premises and was not being used. Respondents in March, 1996 had bought one Maruti car and also had another Contessa car, which were used by respondent No. 1 and his wife and Fiat car was lying unused in the premises. The claimants live in Colony No. 4, Industrial Area, Chandigarh which is very close to the respondents'' address and therefore, it is possible that any of the workers working in the factory of respondent i.e., 136-140/75, Industrial Area, Chandigarh (i.e. where the Fiat car was lying parked and in disuse) might have informed the claimants about the same. The said stand of the respondent appears to be plausible and probable keeping in view the lack of details at the initial stage as well as the discrepancies in the statements of PW1-Ram Dheeraj and PW2-Tej Singh. The statement of PW1-Ram Dheeraj reads as under:-

"I know Baij Nath, deceased. On 19.7.97, I alongwith deceased Baij Nath, Tej Singh and Ram Dass was going from colony no. 4 to vill. Bahlana. At about 7.00 p.m. We reached Airport chowk near village Bahlana. When we were about to turn towards village Bahlana after giving a signal, a car bearing No. CH-01-A-7077, which was going towards Ambala came and hit my cycle on which Baij Nath was also sitting on its carrier. Due to which we fell down and sustained injuries. I got up and saw that Baij Nath was lying at a distance of 10/15 feet from me. The driver of the aforementioned car had driven away the car. Thereafter, I took the injured Baij Nath to Govt. Hospital, Sec. 32, Chandigarh by some other car which came there after the accident. Police had come to the hospital and recorded my statement. I had told the number of the car to the police. The FIR was not read over to me, though my signatures were obtained. Copy of the FIR is Ex. P-1. Later on, Baij Nath succumbed to his injuries on the same day. This accident was caused on account of rash or negligent driving of the car by its driver.

XXX Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate

I cannot tell the name of the driver of the car. The police did not hand over the copy of the FIR to me. I know Hindi. I obtained copy of the FIR after 15/20 days. I did not see the contents of the FIR even after receipt of the copy. I cannot say whether the police had recorded the number of the car in the FIR though I had told the same. Deceased was my ''Guru-bhai''. He was not related to me in any way. I know the family members of the deceased, who live at Chandigarh, for the last 2/3 years. I knew the family member one year prior to this accident. I do not remember the colour of the car. I did not see the face of the driver of the car. It is incorrect to suggest that vehicle No. CH-01-A-7077 was not involved in the accident. It is incorrect to suggest that I have not given any number of the car to the police initially and that I did not know who caused the accident. On our enquiry, the police had told us the matter is being investigated as to who was the driver of the car at the time of accident. I do not remember the number of the car by which the injured was removed to the hospital. It is incorrect to suggest that the person who took us to the hospital had actually caused the accident, and I have deliberately not filed the petition against him. Lastly, I visited the police after 5/6 months of this accident. I do not know about the fate of the FIR. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely."

PW2-Tej Singh in his cross-examination deposed as under:-

"It is correct that there was a chowk where the accident had taken place. We were going towards Ambala from Chandigarh. The accident had taken place towards Ambala side of the chowk. I had seen the accident from a distance of 30 yards and had actually reached the spot immediately. I had taken care of the injured. The car after causing the accident had stopped. Several people had gathered there. The driver of the offending car had got down but on seeing the gathering there, drove his car away from the place of accident. None of the persons who had gathered there tried to stop the driver of the offending car. I had noted the number of the offending car on the piece of paper which is not today with me. The colour of the offending car was white. It was a fiat car. I did not tell the number of the car to the police because Ram Dheeraj was told the number of car by me. I cannot say whether Ram Dheeraj had seen the number of the car. However, he sustained the injuries. The deceased was my neighbour. I did not go to police station for verifying as to what was happening to the criminal case. I do not remember number of the car in which we took the injured to the hospital. I had seen the driver of the offending car. He was having a bulky body and was wearing spectacles. It is incorrect to suggest that vehicle No. CH-01-A-7077 did not cause the accident. It is incorrect to suggest that the person who took the deceased to hospital had caused the accident. I am not a summoned witness. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely."

Evidence has also been led to show that respondent No. 2 has 6x6 vision and does not need spectacles (RW1 and RW3 as well as RW2 Dr. R.K. Bhatia). The subsequent purchaser of the said Fiat car has also appeared before the Tribunal as RW3 and has deposed that colour of this car was dark grey (cosmic). The examination of the subsequent purchaser Fl. Lt. P.C. Sharma, RW3, by the respondent-owner negates the allegation of mala fide raised by the claimant.

The claimants have failed to prove that Baij Nath died in an accident caused by respondent No. 2. The evidence on record does not show that the accident on 19.07.1997 was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of car No. CH01-A-7077 by respondent No. 2. Thus, finding no infirmity in the impugned award dated 05.05.2000, this appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.