Delhi Admn. and Another vs Dayawanti and Others

P.K. Bhari, J.—This appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated February 28, 1981, awarding Rs. 33,960/- as compensation to the claimants.

Only on one point the order is challenged i.e. the Tribunal was legally not right in reaching the finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Sh. Ishwar Singh, driver, who was employed with Delhi Police at the relevant time. Admittedly, on June 18, 1976, at about 11.50 p.m. when the deceased Mohan Lal Grover, who was aged about 50 years, was crossing the West Patel Nagar Road for going to his house that the police van bearing registration No. DHA 6922 being driven by Constable Ishwar Singh is stated to have come at a very high speed and struck against the deceased when he had already crossed a major portion of the road.

In order to prove that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the said constable, the claimants examined two witnesses, namely, Rattan Lal PW1 and Hardeep Singh PW2. Hardeep Singh is having his Dhaba near about the place of occurrence and he had categorically stated that he and one Rattan Lal had witnessed the accident and the accident took place in the manner already mentioned above.

It is true that these two witnesses have not given any statement to the police when the police had also registered a case u/s 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code vide FIR No. 425. But the mere fact that they have not appeared as witnesses in the criminal case brought against the driver of the vehicle would not be a sufficient ground for rejecting their testimony which they gave in the Court. Both the witnesses are independent witnesses and have no axe of their own to grind. Hardeep Singh appears to be a natural witness because his Dhaba is located only at a distance of about 10-12 ft. away from the place of occurrence and keeping in view the nature of the business being carried out by him, in all probability his Dhaba would be open even up to mid night. Rattan Lal PW1 is a businessman. He had left his visiting card with Hardeep Singh and had gone away from the spot. Hardeep Singh corroborates this fact.

The appellants had examined three witnesses, namely, the driver of the vehicle one Sub Inspector who was sitting on the front seat of that police van and another constable who was sitting at the back of the said van. The van was coming after picking up one injured from near Natraj Cinema, Moti Nagar and was on the way to take that injured to the Willingdon Hospital when this unfortunate accident took place. The driver of the vehicle had stated that there was a bus which had stopped on the opposite side of the road and the deceased had come from the back of the bus suddenly and was crossing the road when this accident took place. However, the driver of the vehicle could not say as to which portion of the road the deceased had already crossed when the accident took place. He was confronted with the site-plan prepared by the police which is Ex. RW3/1 which by itself shows that the deceased had crossed major portion of the road before he was hit by this van.

The learned Tribunal had believed the statements of the two public witnesses and had given good reasons for their inability to become witnesses in the criminal case as a case was registered against the driver of the vehicle who was a police official. Nothing came out from their statements that they had any enmity with the police so as to unnecessarily depose in favor of the claimants before the Tribunal.

Even otherwise the Tribunal was right in giving a finding that the nature of the accident by itself shows that the police van must have been driven in a rash and negligent manner inasmuch as the said driver of the vehicle could have noticed the bus which was parked on the opposite side of the road and could have expected that certain persons alighting from that bus were likely to cross the road and he could have been vigilant and careful enough to drive the vehicle at that time and situation in a more careful manner.

Be that as it may, the two public witnesses, in my opinion, quite clearly bring out the fact that this accident had resulted on account of rash and negligent driving of the said constable. It is to be mentioned that the two other police officials who had deposed in the case have not made any reference to any bus being there when the deceased was found crossing the road. The road is quite wide one and if the deceased had come on the road he could be visible to the driver of the incoming vehicle and when the said driver found that the deceased had already crossed the major portion of the road; it becomes quite clear that the driver of the police vehicle could have easily seen him and could have prevented the accident by driving the vehicle in a more careful manner.

I endorse the finding of the Tribunal and hold that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the police van by the police driver.

It was pointed out that in the criminal case the. police constable Ishwar Singh had been discharged. But it is settled law that mere acquittal or discharge of the accused in a criminal case would have no bearing on the finding of fact which is to be arrived at independently by the Tribunal in the light of the evidence led before the Tribunal.

The appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The record be sent back to the concerned Tribunal.