TIRATH RAM SALWAN Vs. S INDER PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by Mr. Tirath Ram Salwan, respondent No. 2 in the petition for compensation. The Tribunal has warded a sum of Rs. 8.000.00 as compensation to Shri Kunwar Arvind Narain Singh who received injuries at the hands of the appellant while driving scooter No. DLR 6720. No cross appeal or cross objections are filed by the claimant. The plea of the appellant is that his vehicle was not involved in the accident and that he was not responsible for making any payment.

(2.) . The accident took place on 22-7-1967 near Bus Stand of Motinagar, New Delhi. Claimant Kunwar Arvind Narain was going on the footpath when it is alleged that autorickshaw No DLR 6720 driven by the appellant came from behind and knocked down the claimant, causing fracture to his right knee. The claimant was taken to the Willingdon Hospital. Dr. A.K. Srivastava Public Witness ./4 who examined Kunwar Arvind Narain has stated in his evidence that the X'ray revealed that there was a fracture of patela. Claimant Kunwar Arvind Narain examined himself as witness. The appellant also examined himself. Shri Dal Chand, Constable, P W /l produced a copy of the F.I.R., exhibit PW. 1/1, lodged immediately after the accident. It was also noted in the FIR that the appellant took the claimant to the Hospital. This is as it should be. When an accident is caused, the minimum given consideration is to help the injured person and to rush him to the Hospital.

(3.) . The Tribunal his believed the version of the claimant as confirmed by the FIR and came to the conclusion that the injury was caused to the claimant by rash and negligent driving of the appellant. The Tribunal also took into consideration the fact that the autorickshaw came from the back side, mounted the footpath on which the claimant was walking and knocked him down. I have gone through the evidence on record and filly agree with the Tribunal that it was the appellant who was driving the autorickshaw in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the injury being caused to the claimant. The appellant's version that his scooter had not caused the accident is incorrect, for the simple reason that the FIR, which is a material document, had clearly stated that it was the appellant who took the claimant to the Hospital after the accident. It was the appellant, who must, therefore, be held responsible for payment of compensation. This is so for another reason. The autorickshaw originally belonged to Shri Inder Pal Singh. It is admitted by the appellant that he had purchased the autorickshaw one month before the accident took place. There was the transfer of ownership but the fresh Insurance was not taken out. The appellant was, therefore, rightly held liable to pay the compensation