BALA Vs. VIRENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the Award dated 19.08.2010 whereby the claim filed by the claimants had been dismissed; the Tribunal after examination of the entire gamut of evidence was of the view that the involvement of tractor No. HR-10-H-3286 had not been proved; the said vehicle has been falsely involved; the evidence led having failed to establish that the deceased Prem Singh had died because of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the aforenoted vehicle, the claim petition filed by the claimants of deceased Prem Singh had been dismissed.

(2.) THIS is the subject matter of appeal before this Court.

(3.) RECORD has been perused. RECORD shows that on 11.12.2006 at about 07:30 pm Prem Singh was going on foot towards Narela from Safiyabad Village when a tractor bearing No. HR-10-H-3286 hit him in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which Prem Singh fell down; he succumbed to his injuries; claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) had accordingly been preferred by his legal representatives. RECORD further shows that an FIR had been registered on the same date i.e. on 11.12.2006. This FIR has been registered pursuant to DD No. 28-A recorded at 10:20 PM wherein it had been recorded that a man was lying dead on the road towards Narela from Safiyabad Village; blood was oozing from his head; it had further recorded that no eye witness was present. Before the Tribunal, an eye witness had been produced by the claimants; he was one Pawan Sharma examined as PW-2; he had admittedly surfaced only on 07.01.2010 itself when he was produced by the claimants; his statement under Section 161 of Cr.PC had never been recorded although PW-2 in his examination in chief had clearly stated that PCR officials had recorded his name and address and inquired from him about the accident. Although no cross-examination of this witness had been conducted yet his statement on oath cannot be accepted as the gospel truth in view of the record that the accident had occurred four years ago i.e. on 11.12.2006 and there has been no cogent explanation as to why and in what circumstances the eye witness suddenly surfaced four years later on 07.01.2010. This fact had been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had also noted that the statement of Shiv Lal (brother of the deceased) had been recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. PC on 19.05.2007 i.e. again after a gap of almost five months from the date of the accident; he was admittedly not an eye witness; he had in fact stated that the details of the involvement of the offending vehicle i.e. tractor No. HR-10-H-3286 are not known to him. As per the criminal record i.e. the FIR and the charge-sheet which had been placed on record, one eye witness namely one Rajesh Kumar had on 22.05.2007 revealed the number of this offending vehicle which had caused the accident on the fateful date; his statement was recorded on 22.05.2007 pursuant to which further investigation had been conducted. After Rajesh Kumar had revealed himself as an eye witness, nothing prevented the claimants from producing him in the witness box instead of Pawan Sharma whose statement had never been recorded before any police officer. The Tribunal had also appreciated that the statement of PW-2 Pawan Sharma was contrary to the version of Shiv Lal (brother of the deceased); the purported eye witness (never examined). The vehicle had also been seized five months later; the mechanical inspection report of the vehicle obviously did not reveal any involvement of the vehicle; it was fit for road. This entire gamut of evidence had been weighed by the Tribunal to hold that the accident of the victim Prem Singh was not the result of the involvement of tractor No. HR-10-H-3286. No one had been able to explain as to how and in what circumstances the number of the vehicle HR-10-H-3286 had suddenly surfaced five months later; Rajesh Kumar (never examined before the Tribunal) had after 5 months suddenly appeared as a purported eye witness before the Investigating Officer; his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.PC was rightly not relied upon.