KRISHNA RANI Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the claimants against order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 18.3.1986 rejecting the claim for compensation.

(2.) The accident took place on 3.2.1980 at about 9.00 p.m. somewhere around Bhagat Singh Market. The bus, bearing No. DEP 3838, hit the deceased Bhag Ram Ahuja while taking a turn in great speed. The deceased was taken to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where he was declared dead. Ramji Dass is the eye-witness. He was disbelieved by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also found that no site plan nor the inspection report of the vehicle was produced by the claimants. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the claim petition.

(3.) Eye-witness, Ramji Dass, had stated in his evidence that he was travelling in the bus which caused the accident and was sitting on the front seat near the driver. He stated that the bus was being run at a high speed of about 50 kilometres per hour and the passengers in the bus asked the driver not to drive the bus at such a fast speed, but he did not heed to it. When the bus reached near Madras Hotel, the driver took a sharp turn at a great speed and the deceased was run over by the bus. The bus stopped 3 to 4 yards from the place of accident. When he got down from the bus, he saw the deceased lying injured. He further deposed that the bus did not blow horn while turning. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not see the accident with his own eyes. He stated that the other persons who assembled there told him that the deceased was run over by the front wheel. The Tribunal rejected the evidence of the eye-witness on the ground that it was a hearsay evidence and was not admissible in law. The Tribunal has clearly erred in the appreciation of the evidence of the eye-witness. The eye-witness was travelling in the same bus which caused the accident. A suggestion was made to him in the cross-examination that he was not travelling in the bus. The same was rejected by him. There was no cross-examination on the point that the bus was being run at a fast speed of 50 kilometres and in the same speed it took the turn without blowing the hom. He was only asked a question whether he wrote a complaint in the complaint book maintained in the bus. There is also no cross-examination on the point that he was sitting on the front seat near the driver. In these circumstances, the statement of the eye-witness that he did not see the accident with his own eyes has to be appreciated. As the facts disclose the deceased was run over by the front wheel, which would come almost below the front seat where he was sitting. The person being hit in such circumstances cannot be seen, but the eye-witness immediately got down and then found the deceased in an injured condition hit by the front wheel of the bus. Considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the eye-witness, Ramji Dass, is a truthful witness and has given the correct description of the accident.