BALDEV SINGH Vs. JASMAIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present appeal the appellants seek to challenge the impugned Award dated 31. 8. 2005 whereby the claim petition of the appellants was dismissed. Brief summary of the facts of the case are as under:-

(2.) MR. S. N. Parashar, counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the appellants are victims of gross injustice as due to the sheer negligence of the concerned staff of Sushrut Trauma Centre in noting down wrong time in the relevant column (date and arrival) the claim petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. The contention of the counsel for the appellants was that the deceased died in the accident on 22. 10. 2000 at about 3. 15 A. M. when he was driving his car bearing registration No. DL-8cb-7420 and was hit by the offending truck bearing registration No. HR-45-4399, which was being driven by its driver in a most rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed. The contention of the counsel for the appellants was that accident was duly reported to the police and FIR No. 792/2000 was registered under Section 279/304-A IPC against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and the deceased was immediately removed from the spot to Sushrut Trauma Centre where the MLC was prepared with the observation that the patient was brought dead. The MLC was not even written on the letter head of Sushrut Trauma Centre, but on the letter of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, may be due to the stationery of the Trauma centre being out of stock. The concerned staff of the hospital instead of mentioning the time as 4. 30 A. M. has written the same as 4. 30 P. M. against the relevant column of date and arrival although mentioning the correct date of the incident. Elaborating his argument further, the counsel contended that the deceased was taken to civil hospital, Subzi Mandi, Delhi for post mortem where the dead body of the victim was received along with the enclosed papers at 11. 30 a. m. on 22. 10. 2000 itself and in the postmortem report it was specifically mentioned that the deceased was declared ?brought dead? at Sushrut Trauma Centre on 22. 10. 2000 at about 4. 35 a. m. Counsel further contended that the appellants had duly proved their case by examining three witnesses despite proving the criminal records. Even an eye witness Mr. Naresh Kumar was also produced as PW-2, who gave the detailed account of the exact circumstances leading to the said accident. Counsel also contended that the name of the said witness also appeared in the challan filed by the police in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. Counsel for the appellants thus contended that ignoring the said evidence on record the Tribunal got carried away with the aforementioned wrong timings mentioned in the MLC and dismissed the claim petition in a most illegal manner. Counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on the copy of the site plan prepared by the police after the said accident to contend that the impact of the collision was so forceful which, resulted in overthrowing the car being driven by the deceased at a far off distance.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. L. K. Tyagi, counsel for respondent No. 3 refuted the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. Mr. Tyagi contended that the tribunal has rightly taken note of various inconsistencies in the documents filed on record by the appellant comprising the MLC report of Sushrut Trauma centre, it would be evident that name of the victim has not been disclosed and the date and time revealed in the said centre has been shown at 4:30 p. m. on 22. 10. 2000 while in the postmortem report, timing given is 4:35 a. m. on 22. 10. 2000.