Allahabad High Court
U.P.S.R.R.T.C. vs Mukhtar Ali Ansari And Others on 24 March, 2021
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1227 of 2012 Appellant :- U.P.S.R.R.T.C. Respondent :- Mukhtar Ali Ansari And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Dinkar Mani Tripathi,Virendra Singh Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Sri Dinkar Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant-UPSRTC. None for the respondents.
2. This appeal has been filed by the UPSRTC being aggrieved of award dated 14.12.2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Maharajganj in M.A.C.P. No.75 of 2008, on the ground that there is contradiction in the testimony of PW-2, so called eye witness and the testimony of the conductor of the bus, namely, DW-1. It is submitted that PW-2 has deposed that when deceased had kept one step on the foot board of the bus, when driver of the bus had suddenly moved bus, as a result of which, he had fallen down with a jerk and i.e. cause of the accident.
3. Reading testimony of DW-2, it is submitted that DW-2 has categorically deposed that deceased tried to board a moving bus and while attempting to do so, he got entangled with the obstacles kept by the police to check flow of traffic and as a result of getting entangled with such obstacles, he sustained injuries.
4. Placing reliance on this testimony of DW-2, it is submitted that no accident had taken place with the offending bus and, therefore, UPSRTC needs to be exonerated.
5. After hearing arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and going through the award and other documents as are available on record, it is evident that DW-2, in his cross-examination, has admitted that he was sitting on the last seat of the bus, he was looking forward, he had not seen anybody coming running from behind. This admission in cross-examination dilutes his statement given in examination-in-chief and it is settled principle of appreciation of evidence that deposition of a witness is to be read in toto along with cross-examination and it cannot be read in isolation. When I read this statement of DW-1, conductor of the bus along with that of driver-DW-2, then it is apparent that none of them had seen the deceased running to catch the bus and then slipping on account of certain obstacles put up by the police authorities, causing injuries to him, which resulted in filing of the claim petition.
6. Thus, appellants own witnesses have not supported their case in cross-examination and, therefore, in my opinion, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned award calling for interference.
7. Appeal fails and is dismissed.
8. If any amount is deposited by the insurance company, in compliance of the provisions contained in Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it be remitted to the Claims Tribunal to be adjusted from the claim amount.
Order Date :- 24.3.2021 Ravi/-