GOPAL SINGH Vs. MORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present judgment will dispose of F.A.O. No. 150/82 as well as the cross-objections filed by respondent No.5, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

(2.) The respondents-claimants filed claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.60,000.00 on accouant of fatal injuries sustained by Hanuman Parshad in an accident which took place on August 9,1975at about7.30A.M.on the crossing of Safdarjung Road and Dhaula Kuan and the road going from Ring Road to Rama Krishna Puram. It is stated that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of truck No. DLL-6467 The said truck came and entered the crossing when there was red light signal and collided with D.T.C. bus No. DHP-2006 which was taking a turn to left side and as a result of the collision, the deceased who was sitting on the truck loaded with sand, fell down and was run over by the truck and he died on the spot. It was further alleged that the deceased was working as a labourer with the owner of the truck and was aged about 25 years. The truck was owned by the appellant Gopal Singh. The claim petition was resisted by respondent no.5 and it was pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck No. DLL-6467 and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus of Delhi Transport Corporation on the part of its driver. The truck had entered the crossing while there was green light and the D.T.C. bus was coming with great speed without caring for the red signal and struck against the truck and as a result of the impact, the deceased fell down and was killed. Delhi Transport Corporation, respondent no.6 herein, reiterated that there was no negligence on the part of bus driver and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck on the part of its driver. The learned judge considered the respective contentions of the parties and appraised the evidence on record. The plea of negligence was carefully considered as well as the evidence on record and it was held that the accident, which resulted in the death of the deceased Shri Hanuman Parshad who was the labourer of the truck, took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver and there was no negligence which could be attributed to the driver of the Deihi Transport Corporation bus.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. Mr. Pramod Ahuja has contended that the appellant was proceeded against ex parte by order dated October 17, 1978. The appellant has already filed C.M.(M) 131 of 82 impugning the said order. The Tribunal, however, did not draw any adverse conclusion and proceeded to dispose of the petition on merits after taking into consideration the relevant evidence produced in the case. The learned judge has made reference to the evidence of P.W.2 Mange Lal who was an eye witness to the occurrence as well, as referred to in the F.I.R EX Public Witness 1/4 which was lodged in the case. The driver of the offending truck was prosecuted by the police for offence punishable under Sections 279/304A I.P.C. Taking an overall view of the facts as well as the evidence on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The plea of learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, devoid of force as no injustice has been done and the matter has been disposed of on merits by taking into account the evidence produced before the Tribunal. I find no ground to interfere. The finding is, accordingly, affirmed.