Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Anjala Devi And Ors. on 31 May, 2016
$~R-121
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 31.05.2016
+ MAC.APP. 44/2008
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.R.V. Sinha & Mr.A.S. Singh,
Advs.
versus
ANJALA DEVI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. Kishori Prasad Singh, 37 year old, working as a cook in the Ministry
of Defence was moving on bicycle on 04.04.1999 and when he had reached
MASE Officers Mess on Palam, Sadar Bazar Roaad, Delhi Cantt. at about
8.30 p.m. there was a motor vehicular accident statedly involving an Army
Truck bearing registration No. B.A. No. 87 C 4788 W Ly.2 Ton Tata,
admittedly driven by the fifth respondent herein (the driver), as a result of
which he suffered injuries and died in the consequence. His widow and
other dependent family members, first to fourth respondents (claimants),
instituted an accident claim case (Suit No. 599/1999) on 15.09.1999 seeking
compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(MV Act). In the said proceedings, besides the fifth respondent (driver), the
appellant was shown in the array as the owner. The tribunal issued notice in
answer to which both the said respondents filed written statement wherein
the factum of collision involving the Army truck and the cycle of the
deceased was admitted but negligence on the part of the Army truck driver
was denied. Instead averments were made attributing fault to the deceased
cyclist.
2. The tribunal held inquiry, and by judgment dated 01.09.2007 accepted
the case of the claimants about death having occurred due to motor vehicular
accident caused on account of negligent driving of the army truck. It
proceeded to award compensation in the sum of ` 10,35,000/- with interest
in favour of the claimants fastening the liability on the appellant.
3. By the appeal at hand, the finding of involvement and negligence on
the part of the army truck driver was challenged.
4. It is noted that the claimants had examined Madan Singh (PW-5), an
eye witness to the occurrence who narrated the sequence of events leading to
the accident vide his affidavit (Ex.PW5/A), the said affidavit was tendered
in evidence on 24.02.2006 but the opportunity for cross-examination was
not availed. Thus, the evidence of Madan Singh (PW-5) has gone
unchallenged. On the other hand, Maheshwari Ram, truck driver was
examined as R1W1 on the strength of his affidavit (Ex.R1W1/A). In the
said affidavit, he testified about the cyclist having approached the scene
where he was driving the truck at a low speed and falling down 2-3 feet
away from the vehicle after losing balance. Thus, he tried to give an
impression that there was no collision between truck and cyclist. During
cross-examination, R1W1 admitted that in the pleadings in the written
statement the factum of collision was admitted. The witness initially stated
that what was deposed by him in the affidavit was the correct version. But
at the fag end of his cross-examination, he admitted that the cycle had come
in contact with the body of the truck. In these circumstances, the version of
R1W1 does not inspire confidence. Be that as it may, the evidence of
Madan Singh (PW-5) having gone unchallenged, there is no reason why the
finding of involvement of the truck and negligence on the part of its driver
should be interfered with.
5. This appeal is unmerited and dismissed.
6. By order dated 23rd January, 2008, the appellant had been directed to
deposit the entire awarded amount with the Registrar General within the
period specified, out of which 75% was allowed to be released to the
claimants. The balance lying in deposit shall now be released to the
claimants in terms of the impugned judgment.
7. A copy of this judgment shall be sent by the registry to the claimants
by registered post at their given addresses.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
MAY 31, 2016
nk
