VINOD KUMAR Vs. HAZARI LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was claimant before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal for short), Gurgaon, where he had laid a claim for compensation on account of injuries received by him in the motor vehicles accident, which happened on 9.1.2002. He was hit by bus No.HR-38A-4246 while walking on the road. He had suffered multiple injuries including fracture of right leg. His petition was, however, dismissed by the Tribunal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal wrongly dismissed the claim petition holding that it was incumbent of the appellant to call for the record of the criminal case lodged against the driver and also to examine the eye witness Umesh. He argued that though the driver had denied that the vehicle being driven by him was involved in the accident, he, while appearing as RW1, admitted that he was facing trial on the criminal side and also notice was issued to him by his department, i.e. Haryana Roadways, for causing the accident. The injured himself appeared before the Tribunal and stated the manner in which the accident had taken place due to the fault of respondent No.1 in driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. The record of the criminal case was not mandatory and even if FIR had not been lodged, the claim petition could not have been dismissed. Absence of the eye witness named as Umesh, would also not be the fatal because the appellant was able to prove his case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that there was the statement of the appellant vis- -vis that of respondent No.1, the former having said that the accident had been caused by respondent No.1 and the latter having said that the accident was not caused by him. There was no reason to disbelieve the statement of respondent No.1. This argument would be of no avail because the driver would have never admitted that he caused the accident as that would have cost him his job. Number of the vehicle was given in the FIR. Name of the driver could not be given at that time as the driver had fled. The same bus was taken into possession by the police and the driver was respondent No.1. It, thus, cannot be said that the accident was not caused by respondent No.1.