Delhi High Court
Jasbir Singh And Anr vs Mange Ram And Ors. on 24 May, 2016
$~R-102 to 106
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 24.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 714/2007
JASBIR SINGH AND ANR ..... APPELLANTS
Through: None
versus
MANGE RAM AND ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate
+ MAC.APP. 717/2007
JASBIR SINGH AND ANR ..... APPELLANTS
Through: None
versus
ACHLA RAM AND ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate
+ MAC.APP. 719/2007
JASBIR SINGH AND ANR ..... APPELLANTS
Through: None
versus
ACHLA RAM ..... RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate
+ MAC.APP. 3/2008 and CM No.193/2008
JASBIR SINGH AND ANR. ..... APPELLANTS
MAC APP. No.714/07, 717/07, 719/07, 3/08 and 4/08 Page 1 of 6
Through: None
versus
DARIYA ..... RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate
+ MAC.APP. 4/2008 and CM No.231/2008
JASBIR SINGH AND ANR ..... APPELLANTS
Through: None
versus
SARIYA ..... RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. On 12.04.2004, a motor vehicular accident occurred at about 7.40
p.m. in the area of Navkar Farm house, Bijwasan, admittedly involving two
motor vehicles, one a tractor trolley bearing registration no.HRP 9878
(tractor trolley) and the bus bearing registration no.DL-1PA-0376 (bus). A
number of persons were travelling in the tractor trolley, they including
Mange Ram, Kasturi, Achla Ram, Saria, Kishore, Dariya, Bihari Lal Mishra.
All of them suffered injuries and Kasturi died in the consequence. Seven
accident claim cases were filed, one MACT case (suit no.292/2006)
preferred by the dependent family members of the deceased Kasturi seeking
compensation on account of her death, and the others (suit no.288/2006,
289/2006, 290/2006, 291/2006, 293/2006 and 294/2006) by Achla Ram,
Mange Ram, Dariya, Bihari Lal Mishra, Kishore and Saria respectively for
compensation on account of injuries suffered by them. In the said cases, the
appellants herein were impleaded as party respondents on the averments that
they were driver and owner respectively of the bus, the accident having been
caused allegedly on account of negligent driving of the bus by the first
appellant.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was also impleaded as one of the
respondents in each case on the averment that the bus was insured against
third party risk with the said insurance company. This plea, however, was
not proved at the inquiry.
3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(tribunal) clubbed all the seven
cases and held inquiry and decided them by a common judgment rendered
on 03.07.2007. A finding was returned that the accident had occurred due to
negligent driving of the bus. While case for compensation filed on behalf of
Bihari Lal Mishra was dismissed, the other six claim cases were allowed.
While compensation in the sums of ₹ 2,93,000/- was awarded on death of
Kasturi, compensation in the sum of ₹ 37,270/-, ₹ 28,589/-, ₹50,041/-, ₹
7000/- and ₹12,950/- were awarded for injuries suffered by Achla Ram,
Mange Ram, Dariya, Kishore and Saria respectively.
4. The award in the case of Kishore seems to have attained finality as no
appeal appears to have been preferred.
5. These five appeals were filed by the driver and owner of the bus
challenging the awards in the claim cases on account of death of Kasturi and
for injuries suffered by Mange Ram, Achla Ram, Dariya and Sariya
respectively.
6. These appeals were admitted and directed to be shown in the category
of regular matters, to come up on their own turn as per proceedings recorded
on 24.04.2008. Since no one appeared for the appellant on the several
subsequent dates when MACA 714/2007 and 717/2007 were taken up, the
said appeals came to be dismissed in default on 25.05.2009 and 31.08.2009
respectively. On applications for restoration subsequently moved, the
appeals were restored by similar orders passed on 09.02.2010. By
subsequent orders dated 30.11.2010, these appeals were again directed to be
put in the category of regular matters. Once again, when these appeals are
taken up, no one has been appearing on behalf of the appellant. This has
been the state of affairs on the previous dates as well. Since these appeals
include the oldest appeals on the board of this court, there is no reason why
the hearing should be deferred yet again. The learned counsel for the
claimants in these appeals has been heard and the record perused.
7. It is noted that all these appeals have been filed on identical grounds
mainly to question the finding about the negligence on the part of the bus
driver.
8. A perusal of the record shows that, in order to prove their case, the
claimants had examined Achla Ram (PW-1), Bihari Lal Mishra (PW-2),
Mange Ram (PW-3), Sariya (PW-4) and Dariya (PW-5). On the other side,
the first appellant Jasbir Singh had appeared in his own defence (DW-1)
besides relying on the evidence of Madan Sagwan (DW-2). SI Jagpal Singh
(RW-1), the Investigating Officer of the FIR (first information report)
No.76/2004 of PS Kapashera which had been registered respecting the
motor vehicular accident in question was also examined to prove the
documents relating to the evidence gathered during investigation. The
impugned judgment shows that the tribunal considered the evidence thus led
in entirety and concluded that the accident had occurred because the bus
coming from the rear side at rash speed had hit the tractor trolley causing it
to turn turtle resulting in injuries to all the claimants and death of Kasturi. It
is noted that the first appellant appearing as DW-1 had claimed that the bus
had gone out of order and required to be repaired and for such purposes it
was being towed with a tempo from Rangpuri on the way to Najafgarh. It
was his claim that when the two vehicles had reached the place where the
collision took place the tempo had also gone out of order and thus, the bus
had to be parked and the tempo was detached for efforts to be made to
arrange another vehicle for towing the bus upto the workshop. It was the
version of the first appellant (DW-1) that he had left the spot to return after
one hour to find the tractor trolley having collided against his stationery bus.
The tribunal disbelieved this evidence and accepted the version of the
aforementioned witnesses on the side of the claimants to return a finding on
the basis of which the appellants were held liable to pay the compensation.
9. In the appeal, reference is made to daily diary (DD) entry no.24A
recorded at 7.52 p.m. on 12.04.2004 in police station Kapashera wherein
reference was made to a collision between the bus and a truck. The
investigating officer as RW-1 is on record to affirm that the accident had
actually involved the tractor trolley and the bus. The first appellant
appearing as DW-1 himself also spoke of collision between the bus and the
tractor trolley. With reference made to no vehicle in the nature of a truck in
the pleadings or evidence of both sides, the above noted discrepancy in the
initial DD entry recorded by the police is of no consequence.
10. The appellants submit that the tractor was damaged from its front side
and its steering wheel was also broken, its left rear wheel having got burst.
These circumstances are of no import in as much as the site plan (Ex. PA)
prepared by local police clearly shows that the tractor trolley had been hit by
the bus from the rear side.
11. On careful appraisal of the evidence on record, this court finds that
the tribunal had considered the evidence properly and reached appropriate
conclusions on the question of negligence. In these circumstances, the
appeals are unmerited and liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
12. Stay against execution stands vacated. The claimants are at liberty to
enforce the awards by appropriate proceedings before the tribunal. Statutory
deposits, if made, shall be paid to the claimants towards part satisfaction of
their entitlement to compensation.
14. The appeals and the pending applications are disposed of in above
terms.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
MAY 24, 2016/yg
