ANGREJO AND ORS. Vs. RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi dated 08.11.1994 whereby the Claim Petition of the Appellants bearing Suit No. 134/83 under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was dismissed.

(2.) THE concise facts as set out in the Claim Petition are that on 11.02.1983, a private bus bearing No. DEP -2418 plying under DTC operation on route No. 835, driven rashly and negligently by the Respondent No. 1, hit the three -wheeler scooter (luggage carrier) owned and driven by one Harke Ram near Taunga Stand at Chara Mandi, Najafgarh, Delhi, resulting in Harke Ram receiving grievous injuries to which he succumbed on the following day, that is, on 12.02.1983. Allegedly, the bus was owned by the Respondent No. 2 and was plying under DTC operation, and was insured with the Respondent No. 3 -M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. A Claim Petition for grant of compensation in the sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Harke Ram, to which written statement was filed by the Respondents No. 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending bus denying the factum of accident. The factum of insurance of the offending bus was, however, admitted by the Respondent No. 3. The Respondent No. 4 -Delhi Transport Corporation also filed a written statement pleading that it was not a necessary party, as it was a private bus which was plying under an agreement with the Delhi Transport Corporation, and as per the said agreement the DTC was not liable for any civil or criminal liability arising out of the use of the bus in question.

(3.) THE sole contention of Mr. Suryakant Singla, the counsel for the Appellants is that the learned Tribunal erred in rejecting the testimony of PW2 Chander Bhan, who categorically stated in the witness box that a private bus having registration No. DEP -2418 plying on route No. 835, coming from the Najafgarh side and on its way to Tilak Nagar, had caused the accident. Mr. Singla contended that in the First Information Report bearing No. 28/83, registered in respect of the accident, which is proved on record as Ex.PW5/1, it was specifically recorded that the deceased Harke Ram, who was the driver of the three -wheeler scooter No. DBL -6147, had met with an accident with a private bus plying on route No. 835. Admittedly, the aforesaid bus was operating under the Delhi Transport Corporation on the said route and thus there was No. manner of doubt that the deceased had died due to the injury sustained by him in the accident caused by the said bus plying on route No. 835. He further contended that the First Information Report had been recorded at the earliest and reflected the true picture. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 -Insurance Company, on the other hand, sought to support the judgment of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the Respondent No. 1 had been acquitted in the criminal case registered against him under Section 304 -A Indian Penal Code by the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate who tried him for the said offence.