Smt. Chhoti Devi and Others vs Raj Kumar and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by the claimants challenging the award dated 15.9.2010 passed by learned Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for short, ""the Tribunal"") vide which their claim petition has been dismissed. On the death of Ram Chander,

having taken place in an accident that occurred on 10.11.2008, Smt. Chhoti Devi and others claiming themselves to be dependents of the

deceased brought a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. The claim petition has

been dismissed by the Tribunal recording a finding on issue No. 1 that the accident is not proved to have been an outcome of rash and negligent

driving of car bearing registration No. HR-26C-4052.

On 10.11.2008, Ram Chander was returning from Bhiwani by train. He got down the train at Rewari and started on foot towards village

Shahadat Nagar. At about 10.30 PM, he was a little short of his destination when a car bearing registration No. HR-26C-4052 came from the

side of Railway Station, Kosli and had hit him from behind. It was driven in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed by Raj Kumar,

respondent No. 1 who lost control over his car and had hit Ram Chander who was walking on his left side of the road on kacha berm. Ram

Chander died at the spot.

The claim petition has been resisted by the respondents. They have denied involvement of the car in question in the accident. They have denied

the other averments of the claimants and have prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Learned Tribunal noticed the evidence coming on the record. He has examined threadbare the statement of Rajinder Singh son of Mangal Singh

who is claimed to be an eye witness of the occurrence. Learned Tribunal has found that Rajinder Singh is a procured and fake witness whose

statement deserves no credence. Consequently, his statement was discarded and as there was no other evidence on record on the point, it has

been held that the identity of the offending vehicle is not proved and issue No. 1 is decided against the petitioners. In the result, the claim petition

failed and was dismissed with costs.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there was no reason for discarding the statement of Rajinder Singh, PW-2. According to

her, Rajinder Singh saw the accident. As the driver of the offending vehicle assured him of taking the injured to the hospital, he left the place.

According to her, the son of the deceased met him on 29.12.2008 at Ashirwad Hospital, Gudiyani where he told the witness that his father had

died in a roadside accident on 10.11.2008 in the area of village Shahadat Nagar. According to her, there he told Parveen, the son of the deceased

that he was a witness to the accident and he told him about the name of the driver and number of the offending car. She submitted that learned

Tribunal was, therefore, not right in rejecting the testimony of Rajinder Singh.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that learned Tribunal had rejected the testimony of Rajinder Singh on

valid grounds. According to her, there was no reason for the Tribunal to place reliance on the said statement and the claim petition has been rightly

dismissed.

The accident took place on 10.11.2008 and about 1 month and 19 days thereafter, the son of the deceased is claimed to have met the witness.

A person who saw the accident for a short while at about 10.30 PM on 10.11.2008 may not be able to remember the name of the driver and

particulars of the offending vehicle for a period of 49 days.

There is evidence that Rajinder Singh and Parveen met the police on 4.1.2009 and there, the statement of Rajinder Singh was recorded. If

Parveen came to know of the particulars of the offending vehicle and its driver on 29.12.2008, there was no reason for him to have stayed back

for another week before informing the police. He should have immediately reached the police and informed the police about the particulars of the

offending vehicle and its driver. The feet that he and Rajinder Singh reached the police on 4.1.2009 further shows that the two would not have met

even on 29.12.2008.

The chance meeting between Rajinder Singh and Parveen, the son of the deceased disclosing about his father dying in an accident at a clinic

would show how unrealistic is this situation. Had the son of the deceased told any one at or near the place of accident, that could have been

believed. There is no evidence to prove that the clinic of Dr. Tivender Yadav and the place of accident are at the same place. The hospital of Dr.

Tivender Yadav is in village Gudiyani and the accident took place in the area of village Shahadat Nagar. So, the very fact that the son of the

deceased was disclosing the fact of his father''s death 49 days after his death at a hospital which is no where near the place of accident is itself

unbelievable. For the aforesaid reasons learned Tribunal has been justified in reaching the conclusion that the statement of Rajinder Singh is

unbelievable. As there was no other evidence to prove issue No. 1, issue No. 1 has been rightly decided against the claimant. Affirming the finding

of learned Tribunal on issue No. 1, I find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.