Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar Jain vs Sudha Rani & Ors on 1 December, 2014
$~A-37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 799/2010
Date of decision:01.12.2014
ANIL KUMAR JAIN ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Saurabh Kansal, Advocate
versus
SUDHA RANI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through
Mr.J.S.Kanwar, Advocate for R-1 to
R-5
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
1. By the present appeal the appellant seeks to impugn the findings in
the Award dated 5.7.2007 whereby he has been fastened with the liability of
the Awarded amount.
2. The facts are that one Shri Sanjeev Sharma was travelling on a
motorcycle on 17.5.2001. At Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi he was hit by a
Maruti Van said to be driven by the appellant in a rash and negligent
manner. Shri Sanjeev Sharma suffered injuries and later after 11 days of
struggle in the hospital died.
3. The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the appellant.
4. On compensation the Tribunal awarded Rs.14,80,400/-.
5. The controversy centres around as to whether the accident took place
due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant.
6. A perusal of the Award shows that the Tribunal relying on the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitor and certified copy of the chargesheet filed
pursuant to the FIR under section 279/337/304-A of the IPC and certified
copy of the seizure memo of the vehicle held that the accident took place
due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant. The Tribunal also
noted that in the written statement filed by the appellant there is a
contradictory plea as in the preliminary objections it is stated that the
accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased whereas later
on it is urged in the said written statement that the accident was not caused
by his vehicle.
7. Hence, the tribunal concluded that the accident took place due to the
rash and negligent driving of the appellant.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is no
proof to show that the accident was caused by the vehicle driven by the
appellant. He submits that there is no contradiction in the written statement
as the written statement clearly shows that the car of the appellant had gone
out of order and the appellant had hence merely parked the car at the side.
He submits that the appellant's vehicle has been wrongly implicated in the
present case. He further submits that the criminal court has also acquitted
the appellant.
9. The relevant portion of the written statement reads as follows:-
"2. That the petition is not maintainable and therefore liable
to be dismissed because the accident has been caused due to
the negligence of the petitioner himself.
......
23. That the contents of the para no.23 of the petition is
wrong and hence denied that on 17.05.2001 the respondent
was going from Connaught Place to his residence at
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and on the way at about 6
pm his vehicle got out of order at Prithvi Raj Road, New
Delhi.
That the answering respondent parked his vehicle on
the Footpath (Patri) and called his friend and went away in
the friend's car.
That next day when the answering respondent returned
he was told/informed by one of he (sic) gatemen of the
Bungalows nearby that police has taken his vehicle. When
the answering respondent reached the police station he found
some donts (sic) on the front side of his vehicle and on
asking the Police Officials he came to know that his vehicle
was involved in an accident case, falsely made by the police.
That the answering respondent has been falsely
implicated by the police and he has nothing to do with the
offence as alleged or at all."
10. The above written statement has been filed on 26.5.2003. The above
averments in the written statement may be compared with the Statement
made by the appellant before the criminal court under section 313 Cr.PC
which was made on 7.9.2009. Relevant portion of the same reads as
follows:-
"I state that the vehicle in question is in the name of the firm
of my father. My father upon knowing about the seizure of
the said vehicle had sent me to the police station Tuglak
Road for its release along with RC of the said vehicle. When
I went to the police station and I requested the police officials
for the release of the said vehicle. Police officials made me
signed few blank papers and later on, I came to know that I
have been falsely implicated in the present case. I have
nothing to do with the firm of my father. In the year 2001, I
was doing my own business of supply of cigarettes."
11. Clearly, the applicant has taken contradictory stands. In the written
statement a completely different version is given as compared to the
statement before the criminal court under section 313 Cr.PC. Even before
the Tribunal no evidence was led by the appellant to substantiate his
contentions. In light of the contradictory statements and the fact that no
evidence has been led by the appellant there is no merit in the submissions
raised by the appellant. The submissions of the appellant cannot be believed.
12. Merely because the appellant has been acquitted in the criminal trial
would not be a ground for this court to take a different view. Reference may
be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of NKV Bros Pvt.
Ltd v. M. Karumani Amali, 1980 ACJ 435 relevant portion of para 2 reads
as follows:-
"The plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal
and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was
rejected and rightly. The requirement of culpable
rashness Under Section 304A I.P.C. is more drastic
than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create
liability. The quantum of compensation was moderately
fixed and although there was, perhaps a case for
enhancement, the High Court dismissed the cross-
claims also. Being questions of fact, we are obviously
unwilling to reopen the holdings on culpability and
compensation."
13. In the light of the above, there is no merit in the appeal. Same is
dismissed.
JAYANT NATH, J
DECEMBER 01, 2014
N
