SURENDER KUMAR ARORA Vs. MANOJ BISLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing order dated 24th April, 2009 passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the claim petition holding that the appellant failed to prove that the accident in question had taken place due to fault and negligence of respondent No.1, driver. Therefore, respondent No.1 being at no fault cannot be held liable to pay compensation and consequently respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot be held vicariously liable to pay compensation.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the daughter of the appellants, Dr. Sunaina Arora along with her friends including Dr. Manoj Bisla, who is respondent No.1 in this case, on 30th January, 2000 was travelling in a Maruti car bearing No.DL-6CD-8579. The deceased was occupying front seat of the car by the side of respondent No.1, who was driving the car. At about 12:30 am when the car reached near Hyatt Hotel, Ring Road, the car turned towards left, struck against the side pole and turned upside down. The impact was so forceful that Dr. Sunaina Arora received grievous injuries. She was removed to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital where she succumbed to her injuries. The matter was reported to the police. An FIR was recorded, however, no criminal proceedings were initiated against respondent No.1 since appellant No.1, father of the deceased, told the police that he wanted no action against respondent No.1 as respondent No.1 was a colleague and friend of Dr. Sunaina Arora.

(3.) The claim petition was filed under Sections 166/140 of Motor Vehicles Act alleging negligence on the part of respondent No.1 in driving the car, seeking a compensation of Rs.25 lac. Surprisingly despite filing claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant in his affidavit by way of evidence did not state a word about negligence of respondent No.1 in driving the car. His affidavit only states that his daughter was in car No.DL-6CD-8579 being driven by respondent No.1 and she died in a road accident. It is no where stated that the car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 or the accident took place due to negligent driving of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 in his affidavit denied that the car was being driven by him in a rash and negligent manner. He also denied the suggestion of driving the car at a fast speed. The learned Tribunal after going through the evidence led by the appellant before the Tribunal observed that the appellant had admitted that he made a statement to the police at the time of accident that he did not want any action against respondent No.1. The appellant did not depose before the court that the accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving of car by respondent No.1 nor any other witness was produced to show that the car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1. Under these circumstances, respondent No.1 could not be held responsible for causing the accident by his negligence. It was also observed that the criminal case was also closed by the police in view of statement made by the appellant.