Delhi High Court
Uoi & Anr. vs Amardeep Kaur & Ors. on 30 January, 2017
$~R-214
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 30, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 279/2009
UOI & ANR. ....Appellants
Through: Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate
versus
AMARDEEP KAUR & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vivek Sharma and Mr.
Nishant, Advocates for
respondents No.1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Impugned Award of 9th July, 2008 grants compensation of
`10,50,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum to respondents-claimants on
account of death of one Harjit Singh aged about 49 years in a road
accident on 14th November, 2006. The facts of this case are already noted
in the impugned Award and so, need no reproduction. Suffice to note that
Harjit Singh was driving a two-wheeler scooter and was purportedly hit
from behind by Balero Jeep, which is owned by appellant. The injuries
suffered by scooterist in the accident in question proved fatal. The
deceased in a private employment was earning `19,100/- per month and
is survived by his wife and son. While relying upon evidence of eye-
witness-Bakhtawar Singh (PW-6) and the evidence led by the parties,
impugned Award has been rendered.
The challenge to impugned Award by learned counsel for
appellant-owner of the jeep in question, is on the ground that eye-witness
(PW-6) has been planted and that the scooterist had lost balance and had
fallen on the road which led to sudden application of the brakes by the
jeep driver, but despite abundant caution, the accident could not be
averted and it was deceased, who was responsible for the accident in
question and not appellants' jeep driver.
During the course of hearing, it was pointed out by learned counsel
for appellant-owner that as per FSL report (Ex.R2W4/1), there was no
damage to the rear side of the scooter and had appellant's jeep collided
with the scooter, there would have been dent or transfer of paint but it is
not so and thus, it is submitted that no negligence is attributable to
appellants' jeep driver. The impugned Award is assailed by learned
counsel for appellant-owner is on the ground of negligence alone and
rightly so, because the quantum of compensation awarded appears to be
just and reasonable.
Learned counsel for respondents-claimants supports impugned
Award and submits that in the face of evidence of eye-witness, learned
Tribunal has rightly held that the negligence is of jeep driver and so, there
is no substance in this appeal.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the evidence
on record, I do find that the eye-witness (PW-6) had surfaced after about
six months of the accident and that too, after reading the Distress Public
Notice (Ex.PW6/R-1) in regional newspaper-Rashtriya Sahara. It is highly
unlikely that any person would pay heed to such a Public Notice after six
months of the accident and would come forward to depose as an eye-
witness. It has come in evidence that alleged eyewitness- Bakhtawar
Singh had gone away from the place of accident because a passerby lady
had taken deceased to the hospital. The best evidence would have been of
that lady.
Be that as it may.
Apart from the deposition of eye-witness (PW-6), there is
inspection report of both the vehicles in question as well as Crime Scene
Report (Ex.R2W4/1). Though there is no damage to backside of the
scooter in question, but in view of site plan of the spot, I find that there
were skid marks of the jeep in question on the road, which clearly
indicates that jeep was travelling at a much higher speed than 30-40 KMs
per hour as deposed by jeep's driver. In the face of the site plan of the
spot (Ex.PW5/4), it cannot be said that negligence was of the scooter
driver. Had there been no skid marks, then perhaps such a plea of there
being no negligence on the part of jeep driver could have been raised but
in the face site plan of spot, appellants' version cannot be accepted.
In the light of the aforesaid, I find no ground to interfere with the
impugned Award and as such, this appeal is dismissed. Vide interim
order of 27th May, 2009, appellant was directed to deposit the entire
awarded amount with interest and out of it, `50,000/- each was directed
to be released to both respondents-claimants and rest of amount was
directed to be kept in a FDR.
Learned counsel for appellant-insurer submits that the order of 27th
May, 2009 was complied with by appellant. If it is so done, then awarded
amount with interest minus the amount already released in terms of order
of 27th May, 2009 be transmitted directly into the bank accounts of
respondents-claimants.
With aforesaid directions, this appeal is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 30, 2017
s
