USHA Vs. SATINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 06.04.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act) filed by the Appellants was dismissed.

(2.) AN FIR No.117/1995 was registered in P.S. Paschim Vihar on the basis of statement made by Parveen Kumar. On receipt of DD No.27 dated 23.02.1995 Police Post Miawali Nagar, ASI Ram Niwas reached the spot and found that on the left carriage way of Outer Ring Road leading to Vikas Puri, a two-wheeler scooter No.DL-1SE-6373 and a dead body whose head was crushed were lying. Parveen Kumar (PW3) met the ASI and handed over the driver of the truck No.DHG-5379. He made a statement to the ASI that at about 5:00 pm he along with his uncle Anil Kumar was proceeding to his residence in Nangloi. His uncle Anil Kumar was driving the two-wheeler No.DL1-SE-6373. He informed that a truck No. DHG-5379 being driven by Satinder Kumar S/o Jagdish R/o Gyan Cement Store, Village Tikri Kalan(who was produced before the IO) while overtaking their two-wheeler from their right side struck against the two wheeler as a result of which they fell down and his uncle's head was crushed under the rear left wheel of the truck. He further informed the ASI that after causing the accident, the truck driver wanted to flee, but he was captured with the help of the public. After recording statement of Parveen Kumar (PW3), the ASI made his endorsement and sent a rukka to the Police Station for registration of a case. A report under Section 173 was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate for prosecution of Satinder Kumar for the offence punishable under Section 279/304A Indian Penal Code. During investigation of the case, the truck was seized from the spot. Its mechanical inspection was carried out on 24.02.1995, the truck was released on superdari in favour of Suresh Kumar.

(3.) THE Respondent No.1(claimed to be driver of truck No.DHG-4131) in the written statement denied that he caused the accident. He took up the plea that he was falsely involved in the case. The Respondent No.4(who was claimed to be driver and owner of truck No.DHG-5379) also denied the accident and pleaded false involvement in order to extract money from him. The Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: