Delhi High Court
Shiv Kumar Bali S/O Shri Nathu Ram ... vs Narinder Kumar Gupta S/O Shri ... on 12 April, 2004
Author: M B Lokur
Bench: M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 30th January, 1985 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Suit No.426/1981
2.The Appellant was traveling in a tempo (goods vehicle) along with some other persons when the tempo met with an accident on 26th April, 1978. Two other persons in the tempo, namely, Rajinder Kumar and Nand Lal sustained injuries which were not as serious as those sustained by the Appellant whose right leg was amputated and right hand became completely disabled. The Appellant was hospitalized from 26th April, 1978 to 19th May, 1978. Because of his injuries, the Appellant filed a claim for compensate amputated and right hand became completely disabled. The Appellant was hospitalized from 26th April, 1978 to 19th May, 1978. Because of his injuries, the Appellant filed a claim for compensaion before the learned MACT
3. According to the Appellant, the vehicle was being driven by Rajinder Kumar, Respondent No.2
4. A written statement was filed by Respondents No.1 and 2. They stated that the vehicle was being driven by Virender Kumar and not by Respondent No.2. Respondent No.3, that is, the insurance company denied its liability since the Appellant was a passenger in a goods vehicle. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: . 1. Whether the petitioner received injuries due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DHL-6548 on the part of Respondent No.2? . 2. To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled? . 3. Relief
5. In so far as Issue No.1 is concerned, the learned MACT held that the vehicle was not driven by Respondent No.2 but was in fact driven by Virender Kumar. Therefore, the first issue had to be decided against the Appellant. On the second issue, the learn ed MACT assessed the quantum of compensation due to the Appellant but in view of its finding in respect of Issue No.1, the claim petition as a whole was dismissed
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant has vehemently challenged the conclusion arrived at by the learned MACT in respect of Issue No.1. Unfortunately, I am unable to agree with him and am of the view that the claim petition was rightly dismissed
7. The accident is said to have taken place on 26th April, 1978 and an FIR was lodged on the same date. The investigating officer did not take any action against Respondent No.2 till 19th May, 1978. The learned MACT, after going through the evidence, noted that even though Respondent No.2 and Nand Lal were available for recording their statements, the investigating officer took no steps whatsoever to record their statements or try to find out how the accident took place. According to the learned MACT, the intention of the investigating officer appears to have been to help out the Appellant whose uncle was a retired Sub Inspector and that is why no case was registered till 19th May, 1978. There was a doubt created in respect of the fairness of the investigation
8. The statement of Virender Kumar was recorded by the investigating officer on 27th April, 1978. In his statement, Virender Kumar admitted that he was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. He admitted that the Appellant was sitting along with him in the front seat while Respondent No.2 and Nand Lal were sitting at the back and that all three of them received injuries. It was submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant that surely if Virender Kumar was the driver of the vehicle, he would have received some injury also. I do not think that such a conclusion is inevitable. It is not unknown that persons have miraculously escaped unscathed from serious accidents. To conclude that because there was no injury on the person of Virender Kumar, therefore, he was not driving the vehicle would not necessarily be correct
9. Significantly, Virender Kumar entered the witness box as RW-2 and stated on oath that he was driving the vehicle. It is unlikely that Virender Kumar would have exposed himself to any liability merely for the sake of protecting Respondent No.2 who, according to the Appellant, was driving the vehicle
10. On the basis of the evidence of record, I am of the view that the learned MACT did not commit any error in concluding that Respondent No.2 was not the driver of the vehicle but Virender Kumar was the driver of the vehicle
11. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that he would gain nothing by putting the blame on Respondent No.2 if in fact Virender Kumar was the driver of the vehicle. That may be so. But that is not a good enough reason for holding that Respondent No.2 was the driver of the vehicle
12. No other contention was urged by learned counsel
13. Since I affirm the finding of the learned MACT on the first issue, it is not necessary for me to go into the second issue, that is, the quantum of compensation due to the Appellant
14. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
