2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.161/2001
% Date of decision: 2nd March, 2012
BIMLA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through : Mr. Y P Laroya, Adv.
versus
DEVINDER ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. O P Mannie, Adv.for
Respondents no.1 and 2
Mr. Harsh Jaidla, Adv. for respondent
no.4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellants have challenged the judgment of the Claims Tribunal whereby their claim petition has been dismissed.
2. The accident dated 6th July, 1984 resulted in the death of Ram Kishan. The deceased was survived by his parents, wife and two children who filed the claim petition before the Claim Tribunal.
3. The Claim petition was filed on 20th November, 1984 in which it was pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DEV-8565. The appellants amended the claim petition in 1999 and impleaded the driver and owner of Matador bearing no. HRO-2607. It was FAO No.161/2001 Page 1 of 3 pleaded by way of amendment that the deceased was sitting on the pillion of Motorcycle bearing no. DEV-8565 when the Motorcycle was hit from behind by Matador no. HRO-2607 resulting in the death of the deceased.
4. The appellants examined two eye-witnesses, namely, Ram Dass Singh and Bankey Lal, who appeared as PW-4 and PW-5 respectively. PW-4 deposed that two persons were going on a Motorcycle on 6th July, 1984 at 7.00 p.m. when they were hit by Truck No. 2674 from behind and one person on the motorcycle died. PW-5 deposed that Motorcycle no. DEV-8565 was hit by Truck No. HRO-2607 on 6th July, 1984 at 7.00 p.m. resulting in the death of Ram Kishan.
5. The appellants also examined PW-3 from Police Station Nangloi who proved FIR No. 203/1984. As per the FIR, a Motorcycle hit a tree on Rohtak Road on 6th July, 1984 and two persons were lying on the spot. In cross-examination, PW-3 deposed that case was closed as untraced on 14th December, 1984. No driver was arrested or challaned in the case.
6. The learned trial Court dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellants failed to prove that Ram Kishan died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Vehicle no. HRO-2607. The learned Tribunal dis-believed PW-4 as well as 5 on the ground that they have not given any FAO No.161/2001 Page 2 of 3 explanation for the lapse of 14 years. Both the witnesses stated vehicle no.HRO-2607 to be a Truck, whereas the appellant's case is that the appellant was hit by a Matador. PW-5 during cross-examination even changed the number of the vehicle from HRO-2607 to HO-2607. The FIR - Ex.PW-3/A also belies the averments of the appellants inasmuch as per the FIR, the deceased Ram Kishan and injured Inder Singh were found drunk and smell of alcohol were coming from their mouth and the motorcycle had hit a tree. No case has been registered by the police against Vehicle no. HRO-2607.
7. There is no infirmity in the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the appellants have failed to prove that Ram Kishan died due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HRO-2607. The appellants have not explained how they came to know of the Matador No.HRO-2607 after 14 years of the accident and why they did not inform the police about it. Even PW-4 and PW-5 did not explain the position.
8. There is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
J.R. MIDHA, J MARCH 02, 2012 P FAO No.161/2001 Page 3 of 3