Delhi High Court
Ved Prakash Goel & Anr vs S.D.Singh & Anr. on 18 December, 2017
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 18th December, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 730/2006
VED PRAKASH GOEL & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Arun Srivastava, Advocate
with Mr. Anupam Srivastava,
Adv.
versus
S.D.SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellants were the claimants before the motor accident
claims tribunal (the tribunal) in accident claim case (Suit
No.582/2003) seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of death of their 23 years old bachelor
son Mohit Goel, in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on
18.03.2003 involving collision between the two vehicles, one a Maruti
car bearing registration no.DBA 5207 (the maruti car) and the other a
Qualis car bearing registration No.DL-3CQ-7516 (the qualis car). The
deceased was admittedly driving the Maruti car while qualis car was
driven by the first respondent, he also statedly being its registered
owner and at whose instance it was insured against third party risk for
the period in question with the second respondent (insurer).
2. The tribunal held inquiry in the course of which the claimants
examined, amongst others, Abhinav Goyal (PW-2) he being presented
as an eye witness. On the other hand, the first respondent appeared as
his own witness (R1W1), the tribunal finding it necessary and,
therefore, summoning and examining Sub-Inspector S.N. Yadav (court
witness No.1), he being the investigating police officer of the
corresponding criminal case being First Information (FIR) No.60/2003
of Police Station Sector 39, Noida District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
The tribunal concluded, by judgment dated 29.05.2006, that the
accident had occurred due to negligence both on the part of the
deceased and the first respondent, thus, apportioning the liability. It
determined the total compensation payable in the sum of
Rs.25,48,050/- but on account of contributory negligence to the extent
of 50%, it directed the second respondent, the insurer, to pay only half
of the said amount to the claimant.
3. The appeal at hand questions the above finding on the issue of
contributory negligence.
4. The learned counsel for the claimants and for the insurer have
been heard and the tribunal's record perused with their assistance.
5. In the opinion of this court, the tribunal has appreciated the
facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence led before it in
proper perspective, to reach a correct conclusion which, therefore,
does not call for any interference. Though, PW-2 testified, on the
strength of his affidavit (Ex.PW-2/A) that he was following, in a car
accompanied by his uncle, the car of the deceased moving from Delhi
to Noida, the evidence of the first respondent (R1W1) to the opposite
effect finds corroboration from the corresponding police record, as
affirmed on oath before the tribunal by CW1, the investigating police
officer. The site plan (Ex.PW-1/E) which was prepared immediately
after the arrival of the police at the scene of collision, reveals clearly
that the qualis car was moving from West to East, which would mean
it was proceeding from Delhi to Greater Noida, while the other vehicle
driven by the deceased was moving in the opposite direction which
would indicate that he was heading towards Delhi from Noida, rather
than journey in the opposite direction, as was claimed in the case of
the appellants. The evidence of the investigating police officer (CW1)
clearly brought out that one part of the carriageway, i.e., one meant for
the direction taken by the deceased was not open to use by the
motorists at such relevant time, it having been closed, the traffic in
both directions thus having been diverted to one lane only wherein
both the vehicles would come face to face, the lane actually being the
one meant for movement of traffic of which the first respondent was a
part. The accident occurred in broad day light in the afternoon hours.
There is no case made out of any poor visibility.
6. In these circumstances, it was incumbent on both the drivers to
be watchful for the safety and welfare of other road users, particularly
when the traffic in both directions was constrained to move in the
same carriageway. Thus, the finding that the deceased was equally
responsible for the collision is correct.
7. No other ground was raised or pressed at the hearing.
8. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
DECEMBER 18, 2017
vk
