KRISHNA DEVI Vs. RANDHIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS FAO has been filed by Smt. Krishna Devi and her daughter Saroj Bala and they are claiming compensation with regard to the death of Sunder Lal who was a young person of 49 years at the time of accident which took place on 3.9.1996. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper and was a resident of Village Nachraon and posted at Excise and Taxation Office, Shahbad. The accident took place at Thanesar near Gurdwara Chhati Patshahi at about 10/11 AM. It is alleged by the claimants that Randhir Singh-respodent No. 1 was driving Scooter No. HYQ- 4795 in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing horn and hit Sunder Lal while he was going on the correct side of the road. On account of the injuries suffered by Sunder Lal, he died subsequently. It was further alleged by the claimants that they were depending on the income of the deceased. The remaining children of Sunder Lal are major and married and are arrayed as respondents 4 to 8 in the trial Court. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs. 854.10 per month and they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 took a joint stand that the scooter mentioned in the claim petition was never involved in the accident and that they were falsely arrayed as respondents on account of the party faction. The Insurance Company also adopted the same stand. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues Nos. 1 to 5 as under :-

(2.) I have heard Miss Anju Vashisht, Advocate, for the appellants and Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2 and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.

(3.) A reading of the above would show that the statement of Sant Ram AW2 has been disbelieved merely on the ground that he did not accompany the injured to the hospital and he was remotely related with the deceased Sunder Lal. I am in agreement with the reasons given by the Tribunal. Let us again scrutinise the evidence of AW2 Sant Ram in order to find out whether his statement can be discarded as rejected by the learned Tribunal. Sant Ram deposed that on the date of accident he was plying a rickshaw in Thanesar and about 10/11 months ago at about 11 AM he was going towards University side and he was near Gurdwara Chhati Patshahi. Sunder Lal whose name he came to know subsequently was going ahead of him on foot. A scooter came from behind which overtook his rickshaw and then hit Sunder Lal. The scooter was being driven by Randhir Singh, respondent present in Court. Being illiterate, he could not give the number of the scooter. One more person was also sitting on the pillion of the scooter. The scooter was at a fast speed. Sunder Lal received injuries and fell down. He got injury on his head. Randhir Singh took Sunder in a rickshaw to a doctor in the shops of the Gurdwara. After two days he came to know that Sunder Lal had died. On the date of accident after seeing it he went ahead. Cross-examination had been conducted against this gentleman. His statement has been disbelieved merely for 2 reasons which have been quoted above. It has been stated by this witness that he belongs to Bartoli, therefore, he is a chance witness. I am not in concurrence with the reasons given by Tribunal. Sunder Lal is a rickshaw puller by profession. In order to earn their livelihood, the labourers have come to the cities in order to perform various types of jobs including pulling of rickshaw or pulling of rehras. A poor man has no choice of business. His primary concern is to earn his livelihood for his survival. If he is illiterate, his statement cannot be disbelieved only on this ground. The basic point for consideration would be that why he is making a statement in favour of the family of the deceased. It has come in the cross examination of the witnesses that Rulda Ram is the cousin of Sant Ram-AW2 and Charan Dass is the son of Rulda Ram. Charan Dass is son-in-law of Sunder Lal. Krishna Devi AW1 also conceded that her daughter Sulochna is married to Charan Dass in village Jhangla and Rulda Ram is father of Charan Dass. This statement, is not enough to reject the testimony of Sunder Lal. He has no direct interest in this case. If he knew Sunder Lal deceased, his testimony cannot be rejected on this sole ground. Had this witness been tutored to say some facts in favour of the claimants, he could easily give the number of the scooter. The witness is categorical on the fact that the respondent was driving a scooter. After causing the accident, he stopped the scooter and he removed the injured to the doctor by rickshaw. Later on, the injured was taken to the hospital.