DELHI ADMN. Vs. DAYAWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated February 28, 1981, awarding Rs. 33,960/- as compensation to the claimants.

(2.) ONLY on one point the order is challenged i.e. the Tribunal was legally not right in reaching the finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Sh. Ishwar Singh, driver, who was employed with Delhi Police at the relevant time. Admittedly, on June 18, 1976, at about 11.50 p.m. when the deceased Mohan Lal Grover, who was aged about 50 years, was crossing the West Patel Nagar Road for going to his house that the police van bearing registration No. DHA 6922 being driven by Constable Ishwar Singh is stated to have come at a very high speed and struck against the deceased when he had already crossed a major portion of the road.

(3.) IT is true that these two witnesses have not given any statement to the police when the police had also registered a case under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code vide FIR No. 425. But the mere fact that they have not appeared as witnesses in the criminal case brought against the driver of the vehicle would not be a sufficient ground for rejecting their testimony which they gave in the Court. Both the witnesses are independent witnesses and have no axe of their own to grind. Hardeep Singh appears to be a natural witness because his Dhaba is located only at a distance of about 10-12 ft. away from the place of occurrence and keeping in view the nature of the business being carried out by him, in all probability his Dhaba would be open even up to mid night. Rattan Lal PW1 is a businessman. He had left his visiting card with Hardeep Singh and had gone away from the spot. Hardeep Singh corroborates this fact.