Delhi High Court
State Of Haryana And Ors. vs Sumitra And Ors. on 25 October, 2004
Equivalent citations: I (2005) ACC 178
Author: R Sodhi
Bench: R Sodhi
JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. CM 12814/2004 (for restoration) Heard counsel for the parties. Cause shown is sufficient. FAO 548/2003 and CM 1125/2003 are restored to their original file and number. CM 12814/2004 is allowed and disposed of.
2. FAO 548/2003 and CM 1125/2003 :
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21st May, 2003, of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 239/2002, whereby the learned Judge has awarded a sum of Rs.4,96,800/- as compensation on account of the death of Ramesh Chand in the a ccident that took place on 27th December, 1996.
3. The brief facts of this case, as has been noted by the Additional District Judge, are as under :
"It is the case of the petitioners that on 27.12.96 at about 6:00 P.M. when the deceased was going on his bicycle near Nigam Bodh Ghat, Hanuman Mandir when he was hit by vehicle bearing Bus no. HR-29-0386. The offending vehicle was being driven at a berthing, reckless and in a rash and negligent manner by Respondent no.1 Zilay Singh. If he had taken due care and caution this accident could have been easily avoided. On reaching the spot the police found the bus at the place of the accident. The deceased was rushed to Hindu Rao Hospital where the doctors declared him as 'brought dead'. A case FIR no. 1073/96 was registered in connection with this accident. Post-mortem on the dead body was conducted. The deceased was aged about 35 years old and was not suffering from any ailment. The longevity in the family is quite high and the mother of the deceased is still alive. Had this accident not taken place, the deceased would have lived till 75 years of age. The deceased was a permanent Government employee and was employed as Safai Wala in the office of Director General of Central Revenue at I.T.O. Delhi. He was drawing a salary of about Rs. 2, 831/-. He was enjoying other benefits like bonus, L.T.C. etc. His salary would have been increased. He was a an of simple habit and used to spend very little amount on himself and used to give a very big portion of his income to the petitioners. The petitioners have no source of income and were totally dependent upon the deceased who was the sole bread earner of the family. The petitioners have suffered massive mental agony, loss of economic support, loss of means of livelihood, loss of daily bread, loss of income etc. As such a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- is claimed as compensation Along with interest @24% p.a.
3.The petition has been contested by the respondents. Respondent No.1 Ziley Singh in his written statement has alleged that no accident occurred with the vehicle of respondent while driving Bus no. HR-29-0386. FIR against the respondent is false and criminal case is also false. If the accident would have taken place then the local police on the red light of the alleged place would have impounded the bus. Till today the respondent has not been arrested by the police nor by any lawful authority. Involvement of the Bus in the accident was denied and it is submitted the petition is liable to be dismissed with special costs."
4. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that there was nothing on record to show that the State Transport Bus was involved in the accident and therefore there was no occasion to have foisted the liability of the accident on the appellant.
5. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that there is sufficient evidence inasmuch as there is an FIR and challan has also been filed squarely identifying the bus. There is also the evidence of PW-4, who deposed that he saw the bus that is involved in the accident. The number whereof was HR-29-0386.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and have perused the judgment under challenge. It appears that the Additional District Judge has gone into the evidence of the witnesses, in particular of PW-3 and 4, which shows that the police officials reached the spot where bus No. HR-29-0386 and atlas cycle was found and both the vehicles were taken into possession by the recovery memo Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B on the same day. Besides this, the learned Judge has given reasons for relying upon the testimony of PW-4, Sub-inspector Shyam Singh Srivastava. I see no reason to disbelieve this witness at this stage. I am of the opinion that the question of fact which has been adequately answered by the Additional District Judge need not be interfered with. FAO 548/2003 and CM 125/2003 are accordingly dismissed.
