LAWS(DLH)-1999-11-34

SAVITRI KHANNA Vs. SUSHIL JAIN

Decided On November 26, 1999
SAVITRI KHANNA Appellant
V/S
SUSHIL JAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.12.1985 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim petition of the appellants on the ground that the appellants had failed to prove the negligence on the part of the respondents.

(2.) It was stated in the claim petition filed that on 9.11.1981, the deceased Anil Khanna while going on his two-wheeler scooter was hit from behind near R.K. Puram at about 10.00 a.m. by a scooter which was being driven by the respondent No. I in a rash and negligent manner. As a consequent of the said accident, the deceased was thrown on the road and received head injuries consequent to which he died on way to hospital. The appellants herein filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking for just and fair compensation. It was stated in the said claim petition that the deceased at the time of his death was a youngman of 26 years of age and he was in the last year of Chartered Accountant course and was offered the work of auditing and was being paid handsomely by his company and that he was earning about Rs. 2,000.00 per month during that period. It was also alleged that the deceased used to give the appellants about Rs. 1,000.00 per month for their needs. Accordingly, they claimed Rs. five lakhs towards pain, suffering and agony and general damages and Rs. 2,000 .00 towards costs of damages.

(3.) The respondents contested the claim petition and filed their written statement. On the basis of the pleadings, six issues were framed by the Tribunal. On behalf of the claimants seven witnesses were examined and documentary evidence was also led before the Court, whereas the respondents examined only one witness. After closure of the trial, the Tribunal heard the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the parties and thereafter by the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellants had failed to prove the act of negligence on the part of the respondent and, therefore, they were not entitled to any compensation. While coming the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal took notice of the evidence on record particularly the evidence of Public Witness 4 who was stated to be eye witness of the occurrence and also the vehicle inspection report marked as Ex. Public Witness I/A and on consideration thereof held that the evidence of PW 4 is not trustworthy and, therefore, was not reliable and appeared to be a made-up witness for the purpose of the case. He also held that the Criminal Court also found PW 4 as not reliable and, therefore, his testimony could not be accepted. He also held that the vehicle inspection report also indicates that there was no damage on the back side of the scooter of the deceased. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants which was argued before me. During the course of argument learned Counsel for the appellants was present but none appeared for the respondents. However, I perused the records of the case carefully in order to appreciate the contention of the Counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal rejected the vehicle inspection report which was proved as Ex. Public Witness I/A holding that there was no damage on the back side of the scooter of the deceased. In order to appreciate the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal I have looked into the said report myself and on perusal thereof, I find that there exists two vehicle inspection reports, one exhibited as Ex. Public Witness I/A and other Public Witness 1/B. Two-wheeler scooter with the registration No. DHJ-4718 was the scooter which was being driven by the deceased at the time of accident. The vehicle inspection report in respect of the said scooter is Ex. Public Witness I/B. The damage shown in the said report is : 1. Slight scratches on the head light. 2. Showcase from left side damaged. 3. Dickey dented and pushed inside. 4. Engine showcase dented slightly. 5. Silencer damaged. The other two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DHQ-4391 is the scooter which was involved in the accident and was driven by the respondent No. 1. The damages to the said vehicle is of the following nature : 1. Front bumper damaged. 2 Head-light dented. 304 3. Hand Brake broken. 4. Engine Side Boynet slightly dented. 5. Right and left show case petty dented.