OMA Vs. RUDRA NAND JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dtd. 29/8/2019 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-01 (Central-District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in MACT No. 455/18, titled as Smt.Oma v. Rudra Nand Jha and Anr., dismissing the Claim Petition filed by the appellant herein by holding that the appellant has failed to establish that the deceased- Shri Ramesh Kumar had died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident in question.

(2.) The above-mentioned Claim Petition was registered on the Detailed Accident Report (in short, 'DAR'), which stated that on 30/5/2017, at around 08.00 a.m., the deceased-Ramesh Kumar was going towards Gopal Tower, East Patel Nagar. When he reached near Chawla Park, an E-Rickshaw bearing registration no.DL-10ER-0756 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Offending Vehicle'), came from behind and hit him. He fell down on the road and got injured. He was rushed to the RML Hospital. Admittedly, the deceased died on 16/8/2017.

(3.) In support of her claim, the appellant, who is the widow of the deceased-Ramesh Kumar, examined herself as PW-1. She stated that the deceased was working as a Safai Karamchari in the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (in short, 'NDMC') and had met with an accident on 30/5/2017 caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Offending Vehicle by respondent no.1 herein. The appellant also examined Mr. Jodha Singh (PW-2) as an eyewitness to the accident. He stated that he saw the Offending Vehicle hitting the deceased. Though he could not remember the complete registration number of the Offending Vehicle, he stated that the registration number of the Offending Vehicle was '0756'. He stated that the public persons took the deceased to the hospital. He further stated that the Police only asked for his name and address but did not record his statement. He stated that he could not see the driver of the Offending Vehicle and, therefore, could not identify him. In his cross-examination, he further stated that the deceased suffered head injury due to the accident.