COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs. KRISHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellants seek to challenge the impugned award merely on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant No. 1. The award is also assailed on yet another ground that the claim petition filed by the respondents/claimants was debarred under Section 140 of The Delhi Police Act.

(2.) MR . Amitabh Marwah, counsel for the appellants contends that findings of the tribunal on the aspect of negligence are incorrect and perverse. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the driver of the offending vehicle was coming from the narrow lane to the main road so as to cross the same and took the right turn and at that point of time the deceased who was driving his two wheeler scooter in a rash and negligent manner collided with the vehicle of the appellant No. 1 and Therefore, the sole negligence was of the deceased and not of the driver of the appellant No. 1. The counsel also contends that the deceased was not wearing helmet and besides that he was carrying cattle feed on the back of his scooter due to which the vehicle being driven by the deceased tilted and hit the vehicle of appellant No. 1.

(3.) I do not find force in the argument of counsel for the appellant. Perusal of the impugned award shows that the Tribunal has discussed this aspect of negligence not only in detail but quite satisfactorily. The Tribunal has observed that when the vehicle was coming from a narrow road and is approaching towards the wide road it is the duty of the driver coming from the narrow road to stop the vehicle and see the clarity on the main road before making an attempt to cross the road. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the site plan which also suggested that the scooter being driven by the deceased was coming from its correct left side when the same was hit by the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that the said driver is facing criminal prosecution against whom charge sheet has already been filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. After having gone through the evidence led by the parties and the documents placed on record, the Tribunal found that the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle was duly established. The Tribunal further held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Rule of rest Ipsa Loquitur was fully applicable. The Tribunal further held that it is a settled principal of law that in motor accidents claim cases, the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle has not to be establish beyond all reasonable and probable doubts as required to be done in the criminal proceedings.