Delhi High Court
Sukhbir Singh vs R.M. Pandey on 22 April, 2016
$~18 to 21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 22nd April, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 192/2013
SUKHBIR SINGH
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Adv.
versus
R.M. PANDEY
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. J P Mishra, Adv.
+ MAC.APP. 198/2013
SUKHBIR SINGH (DRIVER)
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Adv.
versus
ANURAG PANDEY
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. J P Mishra, Adv.
+ MAC.APP. 197/2013
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhaskar Subramanian, proxy for
Mr. Arif Mir, Adv.
versus
MAC APP. Nos.192/2013 & conn. Page 1 of 6
R.M. PANDEY
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. J P Mishra, Adv.
+ MAC.APP. 199/2013
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhaskar Subramanian, proxy for
Mr. Arif Mir, Adv.
versus
ANURAG PANDEY
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. J P Mishra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. On 28.08.2004 at about 9.30 AM, a motor vehicular accident
occurred near Tonga Stand Lodhi Colony within the jurisdiction of police
station Lodhi Colony, New Delhi wherein Anurag Pandey and R.M.Pandey
suffered injuries. Both of them preferred accident claim petitions (suit
No.320/10 and suit No.773/10), instituted on 20.04.2007. In the said
accident claim cases under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (MV Act), it was alleged that the accident had been caused due to
rash/negligent driving of motor vehicle described as Gypsy bearing
registration No.JK 02 S 915 which belongs to police department of the
State of Jammu & Kashmir (J & K), it being driven at the relevant point of
time by its employee Sukhbir Singh (driver). In spite of notice, the State of
Jammu & Kashmir (appellant in MAC.APP.Nos.197/2013 and 199/2013)
did not appear to put in any contest. Sukhbir Singh (the driver) had been
shown in the array of parties in the two petitions as the second respondent.
He (appellant in MAC.APP.Nos.192/2013 and 198/2013) appeared and
submitted a written statement seeking to contest mainly denying the
allegation that the gypsy (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle)
had caused any such accident.
2. The tribunal held inquiry clubbing the two petitions for such
purposes. During these proceedings, the claimant Anurag Pandey was
examined as PW1 and claimant R M Pandey as PW2, on the strength of
their respective affidavits (Ex.PW1/X and PW2/A respectively). It appears
Sukhbir Singh, the driver examined himself as R2W1 and also relied on an
eye-witness named Deepak, also labeled as R2W1 in the records.
3. By the deposition of claimants, which is sought to be corroborated by
the record of the criminal case arising out of the first information report
(FIR) no.194/04 of police station Lodhi Colony, it was brought out that the
two injured persons (claimants) were standing near a tea vend when the
offending vehicle had come in a rash manner and hit against both of them
and the tea vend (khokha). By his own testimony, and the word of R2W1
(Deepak), it was sought to be shown by the driver that there were two other
vehicles involved in the collision, one of which, a vehicle described as Tata
407, was moving ahead and the other, an ambassador car, was following
the gypsy. The driver of the offending vehicle testified that the vehicle in
front (Tata 407) was not in proper control of its driver and while taking a
right turn had hit against some persons who were standing on right side and
while he (the gypsy driver) had tried to stop his vehicle to save himself
from the truck coming from opposite direction, the ambassador car which
had been moving in the rear, ended up colliding with gypsy which resulted
in it getting pushed further so as to, in turn, end up hitting the tea khoka.
4. The tribunal was not satisfied with the defence thus taken by the
gypsy driver (Sukhbir Singh). It returned a finding that the accident
resulting in injuries to the two claimants had been caused due to negligent
driving of the gypsy by Sukhbir Singh. He having been held to be the
principal tort-feasor, and his employer (as also the owner of the gypsy)
having been held to be vicariously liable, both were found to be jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation. In the case of injuries suffered by
Anurag Pandey (suit No.320/2010), the compensation awarded was
Rs.8,48,500/- while in the case of R M Pandey (suit No.773/2010)
compensation in the sum of Rs.70,000/- was awarded; the awards in both
cases carrying interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the
respective petitions till realization.
5. These appeals have been preferred by both the respondents before
the tribunal in the two claim cases mainly to contend that the evidence of
Sukhbir Singh (the driver of the offending vehicle) through his own
mouthpiece (R2W1), as also through his witness Deepak (R2W1), should
have been accepted. In this context, reliance is placed on the mechanical
inspection report of the offending vehicle, as forming part of the record of
the criminal case, showing that it had suffered damage both in the front and
on the rear side.
6. Having heard arguments and having gone through the record, this
Court finds no substance in the contentions urged. Noticeably, in the
written statements filed in answer to the claim petitions, no theory of
involvement of any vehicle other than the offending vehicle was indicated,
not even remotely. The driver of gypsy (appellant Sukhbir Singh) came
with a bald denial of involvement of his vehicle. The State of Jammu &
Kashmir (appellant) did not even put in any contest and rather chose to
suffer the proceedings ex parte. The report under Section 173 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted on conclusion of
investigation into the FIR that had been registered by police station Lodhi
Colony would not show presence or involvement of any vehicle other than
the offending vehicle. The mere fact that gypsy had suffered damage both
in the front and in the rear side by itself cannot mean that it had ended
colliding against two vehicles one in the front and the other behind. There
are no particulars given of the other two vehicles to which reference was
made during the evidence at the inquiry. Rather the suggestion given to
Anurag Pandey (PW1) during his cross examination that the accident had
occurred because the vehicle in the front had hit the gypsy does not jell
with the defence now propagated.
7. In above facts and circumstances, the appeals are found to be
unmerited. They are dismissed.
8. The interim stay granted against execution stands vacated. If any
amount has been deposited by the parties held liable to pay the
compensation, in terms of the earlier orders, the same shall now be released
to the respective claimants as per the directions in the impugned judgment.
If there is a shortfall or any default in compliance with such obligation, the
claimants are at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings before the
tribunal to enforce the awards.
9. The statutory deposits, if made, shall be released only after
satisfaction is recorded that the awards have been satisfied.
10. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.
R.K. GAUBA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 22, 2016
VLD
