Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It is averred that the deceased was aged 35 years and was doing labour work with Simplex Company, Ground Floor, Hyatt Hotel, IGI Airport, New Delhi and earning Rs.10,500/­ p.m. It is averred that the deceased was the only earning member of his family and he left behind his widow (wife) and four minor children. It is prayed that an amount of Rs.50,00,000/­ be awarded as compensation in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

4. Respondent No.1 filed the written statement making the preliminary submissions that the petitioners had not approached the court with clean hands and had concealed the material facts. It is averred that the accident in question had not arisen due to the rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.1 but because of the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. It is averred that the deceased had been negligent in crossing the fast moving road at a place where there was no Zebra Crossing and without even looking in the direction of the traffic and without following the Bibi Zaheda Vs. Gyanendra Singh & Ors. Page no. 3 of 30 safety rules. It is averred that the respondent No.1 tried his best to stop the motorcycle in time and had himself sustained injuries. Further, the deceased was under the influence of liquor and had been carrying a bottle of whiskey with him. It is averred that the respondent No.1 stopped and picked up the deceased with the help of passerby with an intent to get him first aid. It is averred that the respondent No.1 is a government employee working with CISF as a constable and was coming from his duty. The respondent No.1 was driving his motorcycle at a normal speed and was vigilant and careful while driving the same. It is averred that the deceased had come in the way all of a sudden in the manner and despite sudden application of brakes, the collision had happened. It is averred that the respondent No.1 is not responsible for the accident in question. It is averred that the petitioners have made false averments relating to the occupation and income of the deceased and regarding the expenses incurred on the treatment of deceased. It is averred that the vehicle of the respondent No.1 was duly insured and the respondent No.2 is the insurer and in case any claim is found to be payable, the insurer should be held liable for the same. The averments made in the claim petition were denied. It is denied that the deceased was working as a labour or that he was earning Rs.10,500/­ per month. It is averred that the petitioners have made false averments in order to claim a higher amount of compensation from the court. It is admitted that the FIR as stated in the petition has been registered for the accident against the respondent No.1/ driver falsely implicating the vehicle and the respondent No.1, however, there was no Bibi Zaheda Vs. Gyanendra Singh & Ors. Page no. 4 of 30 negligent or culpable act on the part of the respondent No.1 in the said accident and the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased himself. It is admitted that the deceased was on foot and crossing the road at the time of accident. It is averred that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased himself, who appeared to be under the influence of liquor and was crossing the road without even looking in the direction from where the traffic was coming. It is averred that the vehicle was not being driven in any rash and negligent manner by the respondent No.1 and cannot be said to be an offending vehicle. It is averred that the accident had happened as the deceased was negligent in crossing the road without caring for traffic rules. It is averred that the claim is based on incorrect facts and is highly exaggerated.

15. The respondent No.1 had filed the written statement averring that the accident in question had not arisen due to the rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.1 but because of the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. It was averred that the deceased had been negligent in crossing the fast moving road at a place where there was no Zebra Crossing and without even looking in the direction of the traffic and without following the Bibi Zaheda Vs. Gyanendra Singh & Ors. Page no. 11 of 30 safety rules. It was averred that the respondent No.1 tried his best to stop the motorcycle in time and had himself sustained injuries. Further, the deceased was under the influence of liquor and had been carrying a bottle of whiskey with him. It was averred that the respondent No.1 stopped and picked up the deceased with the help of passerby with an intent to get him first aid. It was averred that the respondent No.1 is a government employee working with CISF as a constable and was coming from his duty. The respondent No.1 was driving his motorcycle at a normal speed and was vigilant and careful while driving the same. It was averred that the deceased had come in the way all of a sudden in the manner and despite sudden application of brakes, the collision had happened. It was averred that the respondent No.1 is not responsible for the accident in question. It was admitted that the FIR had been registered for the accident against the respondent No.1/ driver falsely implicating the vehicle and the respondent No.1, however, there was no negligent or culpable act on the part of the respondent No.1 in the said accident and the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased himself. It was admitted that the deceased was on foot and crossing the road at the time of accident. It was averred that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased himself, who appeared to be under the influence of liquor and was crossing the road without even looking in the direction from where the traffic was coming. It was averred that the vehicle was not being driven in any rash and negligent manner by the respondent No.1 and could not be said to be an offending vehicle.

17. The petitioners in support of their case had examined PW3 and during cross­examination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 PW3 stated that the deceased was crossing the road at the time the collision took place. He stated that there is no Zebra Crossing at the place from where he was crossing the road even no red light was there. He again said that he did not know whether any mark for crossing the road or Zebra Crossing was there on the road. He admitted that he had seen the spot after hearing the collision. He stated that he had even seen the respondent Gyanender while he was coming from the Airport side to Mahipal Pur. The speed of the motorcycle must be Bibi Zaheda Vs. Gyanendra Singh & Ors. Page no. 13 of 30 around 50­60 km/hr. He stated that the deceased was carrying wooden bunch of sticks (perhaps for fuel) on his shoulders. He stated that the deceased must be a labourer. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was crossing the road in a hasty manner. He could not say whether the deceased was crossing the road in violation of any traffic rules. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was negligent and was himself responsible for the accident. He stated that HC Rajinder Prasad was also eye witness to the accident. PW3 had called the PCR but he did not take anybody to the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he is not an eye witness and he had reached the spot after the accident occurred. He stated that the road on which the accident took place is a broad highway like road and the traffic was generally plying on high speed on the said stretch. He stated that he did not know the prescribed speed limit for the said road. He could not say that the respondent No.1 was not driving the vehicle negligently. He did not know whether there was any other eye witness to the incident or not. During cross­ examination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 PW3 stated that the deceased was going on foot and crossing the road. He stated that he was on duty at the Aerocity Red Light where he was patrolling. He stated that the accident had taken place about 30­40 feet from where he was standing. He stated that the respondent No.1 i.e. the driver was present at the spot of the accident. He denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle is a planted vehicle. Thus PW3 stated that the deceased was crossing the road at the time the collision took place. It may be mentioned that the respondent No.2 had contended that as per the Bibi Zaheda Vs. Gyanendra Singh & Ors. Page no. 14 of 30 complaint the deceased was on foot whereas the post mortem report showed that the deceased was driving a motorcycle at the time of the accident. It is true that it is stated in the post mortem report 'alleged history of road traffic accident on 11/8/2013 at 12.00 pm while driving motorcycle' but on that basis the contents of the complaint which was recorded soon after the accident cannot be doubted and even during cross­examination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 PW3 stated that the deceased was going on foot and crossing the road. As such nothing much turns on this contention.

18. It is significant that PW3 stated that there is no Zebra Crossing at the place from where the deceased was crossing the road even no red light was there. He again said that he did not know whether any mark for crossing the road or Zebra Crossing was there on the road. Thus according to PW3 there was no Zebra Crossing or red light at the spot of accident but he again said that he did not know whether any mark for crossing the road or Zebra Crossing was there. A perusal of the site plan shows that something like a Zebra Crossing is shown next to the spot of the accident though it is not specifically mentioned. It may also be mentioned that as per the complaint the deceased had crossed the road and was going towards Mahipalpur when he was hit by the offending vehicle from behind and in fact if the deceased was hit from behind then in all likelihood he would not be crossing the road but walking on the road. PW3 admitted that he had seen the spot after hearing the collision but he had also stated that he had even seen the respondent Gyanender while Bibi Zaheda Vs. Gyanendra Singh & Ors. Page no. 15 of 30 he was coming from the Airport side to Mahipal Pur. The speed of the motorcycle must be around 50­60 km/hr. He stated that the deceased was carrying wooden bunch of sticks (perhaps for fuel) on his shoulders. PW3 could not say whether the deceased was crossing the road in violation of any traffic rules but even the respondents have not brought anything on record to show the same. He stated that HC Rajinder Prasad was also eye witness to the accident. He stated that the road on which the accident took place is a broad highway like road and the traffic was generally plying on high speed on the said stretch though he did not know the prescribed speed limit for the said road. PW3 also could not say that the respondent No.1 was not driving the vehicle negligently and whether there was any other eye witness to the incident or not. He stated that he was on duty at the Aerocity Red Light where he was patrolling and the accident had taken place about 30­40 feet from where he was standing. He stated that the respondent No.1 i.e. the driver was present at the spot of the accident and denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle is a planted vehicle which is again not the case of the respondent No.1 himself who had stated that he had also received injuries in the accident.