RACHNA DEVI Vs. SUSHILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, and, also the disabled claimant, are, both aggrieved, by the award rendered, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Una, H.P., upon MAC Petition No. 64 of 2015, (i) wherethrough, compensation amount comprised in a sum of Rs.3,25,000/-, stood awarded, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant, and, thereon stood levied interest, at, the rate of 9% per annum, and, was ordered to commence from the date of petition, and, till realization, of, the afore compensation amount. The apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, stood fastened, upon, registered owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle.

(2.) Through, FAO No. 243 of 2018 reared before this Court, by the registered owner-cum-driver, of the offending vehicle concerned, the latter concerts, to, reverse the findings, recorded upon issue No.1, appertaining to the relevant mishap which occurred, inter se, the offending vehicle, and, the vehicle, whereon the disabled claimant was astride upon its pillion, standing pronounced, to be sequelled by, the, rash, and, negligent manner of driving of the offending vehicle, by one Rachna Devi, the appellant herein (in FAO No. 243 of 2018). Obviously, since, the offending vehicle, did not, carry any insurance cover, thereupon, the learned counsel appearing for the registered owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, does not contest, the, fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon her. The learned counsel appearing for the registered owner-cum-driver, of the offending vehicle, has made a vehement submission, before this Court (a) that the dependence, as, made by the tribunal, upon, the ocular narratives, vis-a-vis, the relevant occurrence, wherein, the tort of negligence stood squarely ascribed, vis-a-vis, the appellant herein, hence, being a gross mis-dependence, (b) given PW-2, being an interested witness, and, PW-4's corroborative testification, vis-a-vis, the testification of PW-2, being also overlookable, and, discardable, (c) as, at the relevant stage, vis-a-vis, the happening, of, the illfated occurrence, he, given his serving as a clerk, with an advocate practising, at Courts located at Una, rather was naturally required, to be present within the precincts of, the Court than, at the site of occurrence, hence his version being both concocted, and, invented. However, the interestedness of PW-2, in his purportedly rendering a testification hence holding leanings, vis-a-vis, the disabled claimant, (d) arising from his being her relative, would not, per se negate the probative vigour of his testification, (e) unless, pointed suggestions stood meted to him, during, the course of his being subjected, to cross-examination, by the learned counsel, for the registered owner-cum-driver, of the offending vehicle, qua his not being present, at the site of occurrence, and, his hence rendering a concocted, and, invented version qua the occurrence, and, thereupon, rather his testimony being discardable. However, PW-2, is, also the informant, vis-a-vis, the relevant collision, which occurred, inter se, the apposite vehicle, (f) and, the offending vehicle, and, upon his purveying information to the police agencies concerned, the apposite FIR, borne in Ex.PW1/A stood registered, (g) and, furthermore, with a close scrutiny, of his testification, borne, in his cross-examination, hence not, making any emergences, that, the counsel for the registered owner-cum-driver, denying the afore factum, rather through his meteing suggestions, to him, vis-a-vis, his not being present, at the relevant site of occurrence, (h) nor his attempting to bely his version qua the occurrence, embodied in his examination-in-chief, wherein, he has pointedly, and, squarely, rather ascribed tort of negligence, vis-a-vis, the appellant herein. Conjoining, the afore, with, despite, it being open for the driver, of, the offending vehicle, to, mete, vis-a-vis, PW-2, hence, a suggestion, appertaining qua, in the relevant collision, the tort of negligence rather standing committed by the driver of the vehicle, whereon, on its pillion, the disabled claimant was astride, emphatically, given the latter vehicle occupying, the, inappropriate side of the road, (i) yet, with, even the afore espousal remaining un-recoursed, by the counsel for the appellant, as, visibly no suggestion compatible therewith, stood meted to PW-2, during the course, of his cross-examination, (j) hence, wants of all afore suggestion(s) being meted to PW-2, by the counsel for the registered owner-cum-driver, of the offending vehicle, hence, cumulatively fillip an inference, that, not only the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, driving it, in a rash and negligent manner, also, the vehicle driven by her, rather occupying the inappropriate site of the road, hence, hers committing the tort of negligence.

(3.) Even though, the meteing of credence, vis-a-vis, PW-2's testification, vis-a-vis, the relevant occurrence, was,sufficient to render affirmative findings hence in consonance therewith, upon, issue No.1, yet corroborative thereto testification, is, also encapsulated in the deposition rendered by PW-4, Ram Singh, another ocular witness tot he occurrence, (i) who alike PW-2 has squarely ascribed the tort of negligence, vis-a-vis, the registered owner-cum-driver, of, the offending vehicle. Even though, he may be serving, as a clerk, with an advocate practising at Courts located at Una, and, even if, the relevant occurrence rather occurred, at a time, whereat he was expected, to be present within the precincts of the Courts located at Una, (ii) however, when he has meted an explanation qua his proceeding, to the site of occurrence in connection with his personal work, (iii) thereupon, his being merely expected to hence remain present, within the court precincts, would not belittle the efficacy, of the testification rendered by him. Consequently, the affirmative findings rendered by the learned tribunal, upon, issue No.1 are upheld.