Kapil Kumar And Anr. vs State (Nct Of Delhi) And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 2274 Del

JUDGMENT

Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. Admit.

2. With the consent of the Counsel appearing for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. The appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 11.4.2005 passed by the Tribunal. The appellants before this Court are driver and owner of the offending vehicle and they have preferred the present appeal as the Tribunal has given the right to the insurance company to recover the amount of compensation from the appellants after the same is paid by the insurer to the claimants. The claimants before the Tribunal were the legal heirs of the deceased, fruit seller, who met his tragic end while drinking water in front of some shop at New Sabzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi. He was hit by the offending vehicle, a tempo bearing Registration No. UP-17-2195. Due to the serious impact of the offending vehicle the deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries and ultimately he succumbed to his injuries after few days. The main contention raised by the appellant is that one Rakesh Kumar was driving the vehicle which is owned by appellant No. 2/Sahib Singh and neither the appellant No. 1 nor appellant No. 2 were driving the vehicle on the day of the incident. Counsel for the appellant submits that despite deposition given by Rakesh Kumar stating that he was the driver of the tempo bearing No. UP-17-2195, the Court below has not relied upon the said witness. Counsel further submits that even the appellants in their deposition have clearly stated that the vehicle was driven by one Rakesh Kumar alone and not by any of them and it was not possible for any person to go to the police and inform at that stage that he was the driver of the vehicle.

4. On the other hand Counsel for the respondents submits that there in no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal as the Tribunal after relying upon the deposition of PW-3 and cross-examination of PW-3 has given the finding. Counsel for the respondents further submits that Rakesh Kumar was simply planted later on just because the appellants wanted to wriggle out of the said incident.

5. I do not find any force in the submission of Counsel for the appellants. The Tribunal has elaborately dealt with the depositions of the appellants as well as Mr. Rakesh Kumar and after taking all the facts into account the Tribunal held that their depositions do not inspire any confidence. The Tribunal has observed that no reliance can be placed on the deposition of Rakesh Kumar who at no stage was examined by the local police. There was an eye-witness namely Mohd. Niyaz who gave his deposition by stating that he saw the incident when one tempo bearing No. UP-17-2195 came from the side of police post, Azadpur Mandi at a very fast speed and then hit the deceased who was drinking water at the place of occurrence. He also deposed that within 5 to 10 minutes the police came at the site of occurrence and with the help of the driver of the offending tempo the deceased was taken to the hospital.

6. The Tribunal believed the testimony of the eye-witness and has taken into consideration the criminal records as the driver of the offending vehicle was apprehended and criminal case was registered against him.

7. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with parties to bear their own costs.