AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
“8.It is clear from the evidence on record of PW–1 as well as PW–3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, has taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW–1 & PW–3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW–1 herself travelled in the very car and PW–3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eye–witness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage C.A.@ SLP(C) No.4705 of 2019 to the contents of the First Information Report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the First Information Report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the First Information Report.”
In the instant case, the evidence on record led by the petitioner before the learned tribunal below is contrary to the contents of the FIR and the same inarguably establishes High Court of H.P.that the offending tanker had hit the car of the petitioner. The evidence also points towards the negligence of the driver of the offending tanker namely Sher Singh in causing the said accident. Thus on analyzing the entire evidence, particularly the statement of eye witness, i.e. PW-4, Naresh Kumar, it has been established that the driver of the offending tanker was solely responsible for the accident. Therefore, in view of the evidence led on record, reasonable presumption is raised in favour of the petitioner and the learned Tribunal below has correctly and rightly reached at the conclusion that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending tanker by its driver namely Sher Singh and the petitioner received injuries while he was driving his car.
Therefore, there is no irregularity or infirmity in the finding of the learned Tribunal below with regard to the negligence aspect, warranting interference by this Court, as such, the same is confirmed.
No other point was urged before me.
In view of the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending High Court of H.P. application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge
Footnotes
- 1.Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? evidence of Dheeraj Kumar. The so-called reason that as the name of Dheeraj Kumar was not mentioned in the FIR, so it was not possible for Dheeraj Kumar to see the incident, is not a proper assessment of the fact-situation in this case. It is well known that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The
- 2.Court must keep this distinction in mind.”
- 3.(raman)s