Delhi High Court
Arun Kumar Srivastav & Ors. vs State Of Haryana & Ors. on 24 May, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ F.A.O. No.345 of 1997
% 24.05.2010
ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAV & ORS. ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate.
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ......Respondents
Through: Mr. Yashpal Rangi, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for R-2.
WITH
+ F.A.O. No.360 of 1997
ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAV & ORS. ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate.
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ......Respondents
Through: Mr. Yashpal Rangi, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for R-2.
Reserved on: 18th May, 2010
Pronounced on: May 24, 2010
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By these two appeals, the appellants have assailed order of the learned Tribunal
dated 21st August, 1997 whereby the claim petition of the appellants were dismissed by
the Tribunal on the ground that the appellants had failed to prove that bus No.HR-10-
4363 was involved in the accident or the accident took place due to negligence of the bus
driver.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding above two appeals are that on
11th August, 1991 Sh. Suresh Behari Srivastav and his wife Smt. Saraswati Srivastav
were travelling on motorcycle No.DL-2S-V-6445. When they reached near Chandgiram
Akhara on Ring Road, an accident took place and both of them got badly injured. Smt.
Saraswati Srivastav died on reaching the Hospital and Sh. Suresh Behari Srivastav
succumbed to his injuries on 17th August, 1991 in the Hospital.
3. There is no doubt that at the time of accident aforesaid bus was also at the place of
accident and in FIR, it was alleged that bus was being driven rashly and negligently by
the driver, it was on excessive speed and had hit the motorcycle from behind. This FIR
was lodged by son-in-law of the deceased by making a statement at LNJP Hospital where
the injured persons were removed. The son-in-law appeared as PW-2 before the Tribunal
and the Tribunal observed that he failed to support the case of the claimants on two
grounds. Firstly, he could not name the bus which had caused the accident and gave two
different registration numbers quite distinct from the registration number of the bus in
question and secondly, he could not say whether the bus driver was at fault or not. The
Tribunal had observed the demeanor of the witness and recorded that the tone and tenor
in which the witness deposed before the Tribunal showed that he arrived at the scene
much after the accident had taken place and that is why he stated that when he and his
wife had reached near Chandgiram Akhara, he saw his father-in-law and mother-in-law
lying in injured and unconscious state on the road. The Tribunal observed that he had
conjunctured that the bus had hit the motorcycle and he had apparently not seen the
accident himself and was not in a position to state whether the bus driver was at fault or
not.
4. The bus driver had also appeared in the witness box and had taken a stand that bus
was not involved in the accident and had not collided against the motorcycle at all. His
testimony was that the motorcycle was in the process of overtaking the bus when a cow
loitering on the road suddenly came in its way and blocked the way. In order to avoid the
cow, the motorcyclist fell down. The bus was only being overtaken by the motorcyclist.
The bus was not involved in accident nor collided with the motorcyclist. The Tribunal
after considering the testimony of the witnesses and the other circumstances came to the
conclusion that the accident had not taken place due to involvement of the bus and there
was no negligence on the part of the bus driver. The Tribunal dismissed the two claim
petitions, one filed on behalf of Sh. Suresh Behari Srivastav and other on behalf of his
wife Smt. Saraswati Srivastav.
5. It is submitted by counsel for the appellants that in the written statement filed by
the respondents it was admitted that the bus had collided with the motorcycle. Though,
the written statement of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not on record and written statement of
only insurance company is on record of the trial court but I have gone through the written
statement as produced by counsel for the appellants. A perusal of the entire written
statement would show that even in the written statement, the respondents had described
the accident in the same manner in which the testimony was given before the Tribunal. It
is settled law that different paragraphs of the pleadings cannot be read in isolation and the
entire pleadings are to be read together. Counsel for the appellants wanted to draw
mileage from preliminary objections where it was stated that it was the motorcycle who
had struck against the bus and bus had not collided with the motorcycle but while
replying on merits, the respondents have described the accident in detail which shows that
the respondents had not admitted that the bus had struck motorcycle from behind as was
alleged by the claimant.
6. It is settled law that the trial court is in best position to appreciate the evidence of
the witness and to weigh it because the Tribunal had opportunity to see the witness
deposing before it. The conclusion arrived at by the trial court regarding deposition and
appreciation of evidence and the value to be attached to the testimony of witness should
not be lightly interfered by the appellate court. I, therefore, consider that the trial court in
this case having observed the demeanor of the witness and having opportunity to see the
witness deposing, rightly came to the conclusion that the witness was not present at the
site when accident took place and he arrived at the site later on.
7. In order to reassure myself, I had also gone through the mechanical inspection
report of the bus and the motorcycle as was available on the police file of the accident
case, after calling the police file in court. There was no fresh damage on the front part of
the bus commensurating with the impact which would have been produced had the bus
collided with the motorcycle from behind. There was no dent on any part of the bus
except that near number plate, there was one mark. This mark could not have been result
of accident because the manner in which the accident is described by the claimants would
have caused sufficient damage worth noticing on the front portion of the bus, which was
not there.
8. I, therefore, find no reason to disturb the judgment of the Tribunal. I find no force
in the appeals. The appeals are hereby dismissed.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
MAY 24, 2010
'AA'
