AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dilip B. Bhosale
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2006 rendered by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, in MVC No. 5860/2004 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The appellant claims that on 07.06.2004 at about 6.00 p.m. she was dashed by a tempo bearing registration No. KA-31-302 while its driver was driving it in a reverse gear.
The Court below has dismissed the claim petition solely on the basis of the admissions given by the appellant in her cross examination. The relevant paragraph in the cross examination reads thus:
I did not seen which Tempo dashed to me. It is correct to suggest that the tempo No. KA-31-302 has not dashed against to me and tempo KA-07-3318. It is correct to suggest that KA-07-3318 dashed against to me. It is correct to suggest that the accident took place when KA-07-3318 took the reverse side. It is correct to suggest that KA-31-302 was not at fault and I have filed a false case against to that vehicle.
Having considered the admissions given in the cross examination, the Tribunal in paragraph 10 of the judgment made the following observation:
The admissions in the cross examination extracted above from the deposition are totally damaging and capable of destroying the entire case of the petitioner. Because respondent No. 2 is the RC owner of the vehicle KA-31-302, which is the offending vehicle in this case. When the petitioner herself admits that the said vehicle has not dashed against her or in other words is not responsible for the injuries sustained by her, then the liability to pay compensation cannot be imposed on the respondents. It is true that Ex.P5 - charge sheet shows that after investigation of the case, the police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of KA-31-302. But the fact of filing criminal case can function only as corroborative evidence and not primary or substantive piece of evidence. It is not known as to what has happened to the fate of the criminal case. In the light of the admissions given by the petitioner, the entire evidence of the charge sheet and the related documents gets dissolved.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant does not understand Kannada language, and hence, she did not understand the questions put to her in Kannada in the course of cross-examination. He further submitted that the answers recorded by the court are not correct and they do not convey what she intended to state. He submitted that the appellant is a Tamilian and knows only Tamil and she was examined without providing an interpreter before the Court. No other contention was urged by learned counsel for the appellant and he prayed for remand of the petition for its hearing afresh.
We examined the record of the Tribunal and more particularly an order sheet. On 22.10.2005, it appears, a lady advocate was appointed as an interpreter and with her assistance, evidence of the appellant was recorded by the Court. When it was brought to the notice of the learned advocate for the appellant, he fairly submitted that he was not aware about it and that he was not given correct instructions by the appellant. Thus, in the circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be rejected outright. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed.