Suresh Raj (Since Deceased) vs . Ravi Kumar & Anr. on 22 August, 2020
21. When the evidence led on record is appreciated in this regard, it
is found that there is only one affidavit Ex.PW1/A of PW1 Sh. Satyender Pal
containing his examination-in-chief and though he is found to have made
some depositions in the said affidavit attributing rash and negligent driving on
the part of R-1 resulting into the said accident, but admittedly, he is not an
eye-witness of the accident and hence, his depositions made to this effect
can be termed only as a hearsay. However, still it is an admitted case of the
parties that an FIR under Section 279/337 IPC was registered regarding this
accident at the local PS Delhi Cantt and a chargesheet was also ultimately
filed against R-1 in the case. Copies of FIR and chargesheet of the said case,
site plan of place of accident, seizure memos and mechanical inspection
reports of the two vehicles involved in the accident, notice under Section 133
of the M.V. Act given by IO to R-2, MLC & treatment record of the injured and
arrest memo of R-1 etc. have also been filed on record of this case as a part
of the DAR documents and the same have not been challanged or disputed.
It is found specifically recorded in the above FIR that the TSR of deceased
was hit by the offending car which came from opposite direction. The manner
of accident as gathered from the above documents establishes by the
requisite standards that the above accident took place only due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending car by R-1. R-1 has also not come forward
to challenge or dispute the facts stated in these documents or the case of
claimants and hence, an adverse inference can be drawn against the
respondents on this aspect, in view of the law laid down in the case of
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh,
DAR No. 114/2015 Page no.9 of 19
reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.