Delhi High Court
Kartar Singh & Anr. vs Nirmala Rani Grover & Ors. on 2 February, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 2nd February, 2012
+ FAO 341/2003
KARTAR SINGH & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum with Ms.
Sana Ansari, Advocates.
versus
NIRMALA RANI GROVER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashok Popli, Adv. for R-1
to R-10.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellants impugn the order dated 10.02.2003 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal)
awarding compensation of ` 1,25,000/- for the death of Dr.
Jaswant Rai Grover, who was aged about 60 years at the time of
the accident which took place on 08.11.1998.
2. The only ground of challenge is that during inquiry before the
Claims Tribunal the Respondents were unable to prove rashness
and negligence in driving the vehicle No.DBL-2663 on the part
of the first Appellant and thus no liability could have been
fastened on the Appellants 3to pay any compensation. It is
averred that the Appellants examined PW-2 Jai Prakash, alleged
to be an eye witness of the occurrence. As per FIR No.423/98,
Police Station Kashmere Gate registered in respect of this
accident, one Mathura Pandey was cited as an eye witness. It is
contended that since Jai Prakash was not cited as an eye
witness, his testimony was not worthy of reliance in the absence
of examination of Mathura Pandey. The first Respondent
entered the witness box as RW-1 and denied his involvement in
the accident. It is thus submitted that the Claims Tribunal fell
into error in holding that the accident was caused on account of
rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.DBL-2663 by the first
Appellant.
3. It is argued that since rash and negligent driving is not proved,
the impugned order awarding compensation is liable to be set
aside.
4. Jai Prakash (PW-2) in his examination-in-chief deposed that on
08.11.1998 at about 3:30 PM he was standing outside Balmiki
Mandir near Hanuman Mandir, Jamna Bazar in order to cross
the road. He noticed that an old man was in the process of
crossing the road and had reached the central verge; a police
vehicle bearing No.DBL-2663 which was driven by the first
Respondent (Appellant herein) in a rash and negligent manner
came from Rajghat side (flyover) and struck against the
deceased i.e. the old man. The old man fell down and suffered
grievous injuries. The Police vehicle (No.DBL-2663) did not
stop and fled away. He deposed that the deceased was removed
to the Hospital by some police personnel. He testified that the
accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of
the driver of vehicle No.DBL-2663. In cross-examination the
witness denied the suggestion that he did not see the accident
taking place. He admitted that he did not make any statement in
the criminal case.
5. Kartar Singh, the first Appellant examined himself as RW-1 and
deposed that on 08.11.1998 a false case was registered against
him. No accident took place by the vehicle driven by him on
that day. He parked the vehicle on finishing his duty. On the
next date he was called to PS Kashmere Gate and was
implicated in the case. In cross-examination the first Appellant
admitted that the criminal case was pending against him. He
had not informed his department that he had been implicated
falsely. He admitted that he did not lodge any complaint
against the IO.
6. It is true that Mathura Pandey, an eye witness cited in the
criminal complaint has not been examined. It is also not in
dispute that PW-2 Jai Prakash was not cited as an witness in the
criminal case. It is important to note that in FIR No.423/98
registered in Police Station Kashmere Gate at 5:15 PM just
within one hour and 45 minutes of the incident the number of
the vehicle i.e. DBL-2663 and the fact that it was the police
vehicle, which caused the accident were recorded. It is not
disputed by the Appellants that the first Appellant was the
driver on this vehicle on the date and the time of the accident.
The first Appellant has not come out with any defence that at
the alleged time of the accident he did not pass from the site of
the accident. As stated earlier, the first Appellant who himself
is a police official did not make any complaint through his
department that he has been implicated in the criminal case
falsely. It is not Appellant's case that although the accident was
caused with this vehicle but the Appellant was not negligent. In
this view of the matter there is no reason to disbelieve PW-2's
testimony. The Claims Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion
that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent
driving of the first Appellant. I do not find any ground to
interfere in this finding.
7. No other ground has been raised.
8. The Appeal is devoid of any merit, the same is accordingly
dismissed.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 02, 2012
hs
