LAWS(DLH)-2011-11-511

CHANDER BAHADUR NEPALI & ANR Vs. MAIMO @ MEHBHO

Decided On November 29, 2011
Chander Bahadur Nepali And Anr Appellant
V/S
Maimo @ Mehbho Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants who are the driver and owner of CRPF Truck No.HR 38A 2934 impugn the award dated 02.02.2010 passed by the MACT whereby a compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- was awarded in respect of death of a child Tarun Kumar aged 14 years at the time of accident which took place on 30.09.2006. The Tribunal while relying on Sudesh v. Jai Prakash, MAC. APP. No.418/2009 decided on 16.11.2009; Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan, 2005 7 SLT 257; Shyam Narain v. Kitty Tours and Travels, 2006 ACJ 320; R. K. Malik v. Kiran Pal, 2006 3 ACC 261 Delhi High Court; R. K. Malik v. Kiran Pal, 2009 8 Scale 451, awarded Rs. 3,75,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

(2.) The grounds of challenge are as under: -

(3.) To prove the negligence the Respondent examined Rajbir Sharma. He deposed that on 30.09.2006 he was going towards Gurgaon from Mehrauli on his motorcycle bearing No.DL- 3SW-7629 and deceased Tarun was sitting as a pillion rider. When they reached at M.G. Road Aya Nagar red light the offending Truck No.HR-38A-2934 came from behind and struck against his motorcycle. In cross-examination PW-2 denied the suggestion that he took a right turn suddenly and hit the offending Truck. The Appellants examined Chander Bahadur Nepali as R1W1 to testify the defence. The affidavit Ex. R1W1/X and the case set up in the cross-examination by Appellant Chander Bahadur Nepali is different from the one set up in cross-examination of PW-2 Rajbir Sharma. In affidavit Chander Bahadur Nepali testified that the motorcycle No.DL- 39W-7629 overtook from the left side at a very high speed. Thus, the Appellant No.1's testimony is not believable. A criminal case under Section 279/ 304A IPC by FIR No.699/2006, P.S. Mehrauli was registered against the Appellant No.1. On the basis of the evidence produced during the inquiry before the Tribunal including the record of the criminal case, it was clearly established that the accident took place on account of rashness and negligence on Appellant No.1's part.