Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Whether the claim petitions are bad on account of mis-joinder of parties or on account of non-joinder of necessary parties? OPP
10. Whether the claimants in MACT Case No. 27 of 1989 were estopped from filing the claim petition on account of their own acts and conduct?OPP
11. Relief.

6. The parties led evidence. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion, that the Bus was not being driven by Tarsem Singh-respondent No. 1 rashly or negligently. The Tribunal further held that the accident took place, on account of the rash or negligent driving of the tractor-trolley, by the driver thereof. Ultimately, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants in Claim Petition No. 103 of 1992 (Old No. 27 of 1989) were only entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, with interest, at the rate of 12% per annum, on account of no fault liability. Claim petition No. 104 (Old No. 27 of 1989) in which the compensation had been claimed with regard to the damages, caused to the tractor-trolley, in the accident, referred to herein before was dismissed.

9. Vikram Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, PW4, was the driver of the tractor-trolley on 2.5.1989, when the accident took place. It is evident from his statement, that, on the relevant day, his father Sukhdev Singh was sitting in the trolley, whereas, 5/7 other persons forcibly became occupants of the same and when he reached near the bus stand of Nilokheri, a signal for taking a turn towards the right hand side was given. Thereafter, he crossed the G.T. road towards the right hand side. When he crossed the road completely, Bus bearing No. DEP-9640, came from the side of Delhi, which was being driven at a very fast speed, rashly and negligently. It is further evident from his statement, that the bus struck against the tractor-trolley, as a result whereof, the trolley got detached; from the tractor, on account of the impact of the accident, and Sukhdev Singh, fell down, on the ground. The wheels of the said bus crushed the head of Sukhdev Singh and he died at the spot. It is further evident from his statement that the tractor-trolley was also badly damaged. He lodged, FIR Ex. PB. It was further stated by him, that the accident took place, on account of the fault of the bus driver. Even during the course of cross-examination he stated that the tractor-trolley had completely crossed the G.T. Road, and was not on the G.T. Road, at the time of accident. The presence of Vikram Singh at the time of accident, is further corroborated from Ex.PB., copy of the FIR, which was lodged by him, at 10.40 A.M. I.e., immediately thereafter (accident). No doubt, Vikram Singh-PW4, is son of Sukhdev Singh-deceased. The mere fact that he is related to the deceased, in itself, is not sufficient to. disbelieve his statement, particularly, when his presence at the time of accident, was duly established. There was absolutely, no reason, on the part of the said witness to depose falsely. Not only this, it is evident from the copy of the mechanical report Ex.PG. of Bus No. DEP-9640, which was involved, in the accident, that the brake of the same was on the second paddle. It means that the brake of the bus, was not in a proper working condition, and it was defective. There is no evidence, on the record, that before leaving Delhi for the destination, the brake of the bus was got checked, from the mechanic properly, by the driver thereof. It was also held in Godaabarish Satpathy v. Brundaban Mishra 1984 A.C.J. 59, that when there was defect in brake I.e., when there was a case of brake failure, the maxim res ipsa loquitur was applicable and there is presumption that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. Not only this, it was admitted by Tarsem Singh, Driver, RW-1, that FIR copy whereof is Ex.PB in relation to the accident aforesaid was registered, against him and he was facing trial, in a Court of law, it is prima facie safe to hold, that the accident occurred on account of his rash and negligent act. The evidence of Vikram Singh PW-4, duly corroborated by the mechanical report Ex.PG, which was prepared after the accident, clearly proved that the accident, took place, on account of the rash or negligent driving of the Bus, by Tarsem Singh-respondent No. 1, its driver. The Tribunal was wrong in holding otherwise. The contention of the Counsel for the appellants, carries substance, and is accepted.

10. The counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion, that the driver of the Bus was neither negligent nor rash, in driving the same, when the accident took place. He further contended that, in the FIR, copy whereof is Ex.PB, Vikram Singh stated that he was turning the tractor-trolley towards the right side of the road, when the accident took place, whereas, in his statement while appearing as, PW-4, he stated that he had already crossed the G.T. Road towards Nilokheri and had reached the unmetalled portion of the same, when the accident took place. He further contended that, on account of inconsistency, between the statement of Vikram Singh, PW4, and the FIR Exhibit PB, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion, that it was the driver of the tractor-trolley, who was rash or negligent, resulting into accident, leading to the death of Sukhdev Singh. He further contended that even the photographs placed, on record, clearly showed that the tractor-trolley had just turned towards the right side of the G.T. Road and had not crossed the same, when the accident took place. As stated above, the strict principles of Civil Procedure Code, and the Evidence Act, are not applicable to the enquires, required to be made, in Motor Accident Claim cases. The Tribunal is required to evolve its own procedure, which may be, in consonance with the broad principles of natural justice. The statement of Vikram Singh, PW4, on solemn affirmation, before the Tribunal, constitutes substantive evidence, whereas, the FIR, copy where of Exhibit PB, was his previous statement and not substantive evidence, which could only be used for the purpose of contradiction or corroboration. In the substantive evidence Vikram Singh, stated that he had already crossed the G.T. Road towards Nilokheri, and reached the unmetalled portion of the same. Inconsistency between his statement and the FIR Exhibit PB, on this aspect of the matter, could certainly be ignored. The substantive evidence before the Tribunal was required to be taken into consideration. Even it can be said that in-consistency in Ex.PB, might have occurred, on account of mental condition of Vikram Singh-PW4, immediately after the accident. Since the father of Vikram Singh, had died, in the accident, in question, he must be mentally disturbed and puzzled. In such a situation, his mental condition could be well imagined. If, in that state of mental condition, he could not recite some fact, in the FIR, or recited the same, in the manner, which was in contradiction to his substantive evidence, that could be ignored. In Virat Sama v. Mohan Lal , the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that the FIR is often lodged, in haste, and the same cannot be a substitute for the evidence giving the exhaustive version of the occurrence. The statements before the Tribunal are made, on solemn affirmation, whereas the FIR is never lodged on solemn affirmation. The principle of law, laid down, in the said authority, is fully applicable, to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal also took into consideration the photographs, and the site plan Exhibit PM while coming to the conclusion, that the accident took place, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trolley. It may be stated here, that no significance, could be attached to the photographs, as it is a matter of common knowledge, that after the accident the vehicle do not remain in the same position, in which the same was at the time of accident. Exhibit PM, is only a rough site plan. The author of the same was not produced to verify the authenticity of the same. No doubt, Tarsem Singh-respondent No. 1, while appearing, as RW1, stated that when the Bus was at a distance of 4/5 feet, the tractor-trolley had turned towards the right side for crossing the G.T. Road, without giving any signal, and the accident took place on account of his negligence. In case, the accident had taken place, on account of the negligence of the driver of the tractor-troller, Tarsem Singh, RW-1, could certainly make a statement, before the police, immediately after the same that he had been falsely implicated. He could also make a complaint, to the Superior Police Officers, in case, he was not heard by the junior police officers, regarding his false implication. He could also make a complaint, to a Superior Officer, of his department, immediately, on reaching Delhi, that the accident had taken place, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trolley and he was falsely implicated, in a criminal case. He, however, did not adopt any such method. He kept mum throughout, and, ultimately, made his statement as RW-1, for the first time, before the Tribunal on 14.3.1991 I.e., after about two years of the accident. The Tribunal, in my opinion, was not right in coming to the conclusion that the accident took place, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trolley. The Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence produced, on record, with regard to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Bus, in a proper manner, as a result whereof, miscarriage of justice occasioned. Reliance on the photographs, site plan and the statement of Tarsem Singh-RW1, by the Tribunal was, therefore, misplaced. The submission of the Counsel for the respondents being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

13. Coming to the compensation, in respect of damage caused, to the tractor-trolley, in the said accident, it may be stated here that the bills Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P4 have been proved by Ram Kumar (PW-2) and Ram Rattan (PW-3) in their evidence. The tractor was completely damaged. The total amount of Rs. 13812.03 was spent for the repair of the tractor-trolley and for the purchase of spare parts, required for the repair of the said tractor-trolley. Since, it has been held that the driver of the bus was rash or negligent in driving the same, as a result whereof, the accident took place, and the tractor-trolley were damaged, Smt. Gurdeep Kaur, widow of the deceased was entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 13812.03 in claim petition No. 26 of 1989. The findings of the claims Tribunal on issue No. 5 and 6 to the contrary are reversed.