Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 656 (PAT)

Dayamanti Devi v. Suresh Singh

2001-07-27

S.N.PATHAK

body2001
Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the jugment passed by the 3rd. Additional District Judge, Nalanda, in Claim case no. 16 of 1989. 2. The relevant facts are that the widow of one Nand Lal Prasad, the sons and daughters filed the aforesaid claim case where they had sought compensation for the death of Nand Lal Prasad in an accident caused by one vehicle bearing no. BPl 7565 owned by the father of respondent nos. 1 to 7, namely, late Prasadi Singh and driven by respondent no. 8 Indradeo Prasad on 30.5.89 at 8.30 A.M. near the Noorsarai High School (in the district of Nalanda). The lower court on the basis of evidence adduced by the claimants (appellants) as also the owner of the vehicle dismissed the claim of the appellants. 3. It was submitted before me by the appellants lawyer that admittedly one maxi-taxi bearing registration no. BPI 7565 was seized by the police and the owner got its release from the court. In the F.I.R. of course, there was a wrong reference to the vehicle which caused the accident and it was mentioned therein as BPH 7565. In the fardbeyan also (Ext-1) there was, of course, the wrong reference of the vehicle which caused the accident. But, however, in the chargesheet (Ext-7) submitted by the police, this reference was corrected as BPI 7565. Moreover, O. P. Ws. (witness of the opposite party respondents) at least admitted that there was an accident near the Noorsarai High School by a speeding maxi-taxi involving the deceased Nand Lal Prasad. So, when it was admitted that there was an accident in which the deceased died, it was unjustified on the part of the trial court to dismiss the claim of the appellants on the premise that the claimants had failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubts. It was further submitted by the appellants lawyer that a claim case has to be disposed of independently on the evidence of its own record and the Claims Tribunal cannot be guided by the circumstance that the driver of the particular vehicle had been acquitted in a criminal case filed by the prosecution. 4. It was further submitted by the appellants lawyer that a claim case has to be disposed of independently on the evidence of its own record and the Claims Tribunal cannot be guided by the circumstance that the driver of the particular vehicle had been acquitted in a criminal case filed by the prosecution. 4. Of course, when an accident is admitted involving a particular deceased, the moot question in a claim case is that which of the vehicles caused the alleged accident and who was liable to pay compensation to the heirs of the deceased. Under the law, normally the owner of the concerned vehicle is liable to pay compensation. But it must be proved by evidence on record that a particular vehicle owned by a particular person caused the alleged accident. Simply because there was no challenge to the concerned accident, that will not amount to an inference that the particular owner of a particular vehicle, who is sued in a claims case, shall be liable to pay the compensation money, unless it was proved that his vehicle caused the alleged accident. So, the evidence led by the claimants in this connection was the sole guiding factor. In this connection, I find that the claimants had examined six witnesses. P. W. 6 was a formal witness who brought on the record salary certificate of the deceased who was a V.L.W. (Ext. 2). P. W. 5 was photographer who had taken photograph of BPI 7565 which was parked near the Noorsarai High School gate. P. W. 4 was a cultivator who while returning from Noorsarai market to his own village came to the Noorsarai High School and found one person lying on the road dead and who did not identify this man P. W. 3 was the Choukidar, on whose fardbeyan the case was registered. This witness said that on the alleged date and time when he was near the school gate he saw that a maxi-taxi was coming from the northern direction and a scooter driven by a person was coming from the southern direction. Both the scooter and the maxi-taxi collided near the school gate. The maxi-taxi dragged the scooter to some distance causing instantaneous desth to the scaooter driver. Both the scooter and the maxi-taxi collided near the school gate. The maxi-taxi dragged the scooter to some distance causing instantaneous desth to the scaooter driver. P. W. 2 was another Choukidar who informed the police, then Dinesh Sharma, Jamadar, came to the place of occurrence, to whom this witness (P. W. 3) made his statement on which he put his signature. He further said in chief itself that he was not a thoroughly literate person, he any how knew to put his signature. In chief he failed to give the number of maxi-taxi which caused the alleged accident. In cross-examination at paragraph 10 he said that Ramesh Paswan, A. W. 2, had reached the place of occurrence before himself (this witness). He further stated that on the date of occurrence at the alleged time the school was open and students and teachers from the school came to the place of occurrence. P. W. 2 was another choukidar who also claimed to be an eye-witness and he has given the number of mixi-taxi as BPf 7565, but in cross-examination at page 4, paragraph 4 he said that he had not given the vehicle number (of the maxitaxi) nor in his presence the Daroga was informed of the number of the maxi-taxi. So, it is apparent that this witness gave the number of the maxi-taxi in chief, perhaps, on being informed by others before he was examined in chief in court, P. W. 1 was one of the claimants. He is not an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. So, he was not competent to speak as to the vehicle which allegedly caused the alleged accident in which his father was killed. Although he said that he had gone to the police station where he had seen the allegedly seized vehicle which bore the number BPI 7565. 5. From the above resume of the evidence, it is apparent that there were only two eye-witnesses, P. W. 2 and 3, who were competent to say as to what was exactly the vehicle which caused the alleged accident. It. has already been seen that P. W. 3 failed to give the number of the alleged vehicle and P. W. 2 gave the number in chief, but in cross-examination he admitted that Daroga was not informed of the number of the vehicle at the place of occurrence at the time of recording of the fardbeyan. It. has already been seen that P. W. 3 failed to give the number of the alleged vehicle and P. W. 2 gave the number in chief, but in cross-examination he admitted that Daroga was not informed of the number of the vehicle at the place of occurrence at the time of recording of the fardbeyan. The evidence of these eye witnesses was also to the effect that after the accident the driver fled away leaving his vehicle on the road. Now the question is whether the driver of the offending vehicle had, of course, fled away after leaving his vehicle at the spot and whether the vehicle seized in this case by the police was, of course, the vehicle left by the offending driver at the spot. 6. The case of the defence as evidenced by O. P. Ws. was that one Laxmi Rabidas had hired the vehicle no. BPI 7565 for a visit to Deoghar and it had returned in the morning of 30.5.89 and it was parked near the Noorsarai High School and the driver Indradeo Prasad, respondent no. 8, went to the village home of Laxmi Rabidas to take the rest of the hired money. So, admittedly, the vehicle of respondents was parked near the High School where the alleged accident took place. So, it was quite natural for the police to seize the vehicle and admittedly it was seized and got released by its owner from the court where the criminal case was pending. But simply because this vehicle was seized during the course of its parking at the school gate, it would not amount to the conclusion that this vehicle had caused the alleged accident. This is so, because the evidence led on behalf of the applicants witnesses was that the driver of the offending vehicle left after leaving his vehicle on the road. Now the question is whether this evidence of the claimants witnesses was worth reliance. Whenever an accident is caused by any vehicle, the driver would normally try to escape speeding his vehicle and he will not take the risk of fleeing from the place of occurrence on foot after leaving his vehicle, because in that case, there are very many chances that he would be caught by onlookers. So, the probability of the driver speeding away in his vehicle is stronger. So, the probability of the driver speeding away in his vehicle is stronger. So, when the applicants witnesses said that the driver of the offending vehicle fled away after leaving his vehicle on this spot their testimony is not convincing. Moreover, if the driver of the offending vehicle would flee away after leaving his vehicle he would leave it on the road in a haphazard manner without parking it properly. But the evidence is that the vehicle no. BPI 7565 was seized from the school gate in a well parked condition. So, the circumstances do not indicate that the vehicle seized was the vehicle which had caused the alleged accident. There is another circumstance which would also, perhaps, belie the story of accident by the vehicle no. BPI 7565. The appellants had exhibited the petition filed by the owner of the vehicle in the criminal court seeking release of the vehicle (Ext. 6). This petition at paragraph 3 has stated that the vehicle whose release was sought was examined by MVl. So, the report of the MVl was most important piece of evidence to suggest that BPI 7565 had caused the accident. Normally when an accident takes place the offending vehicle and the vehicle which is dashed both receive some damage. ln the instant case, the maxi-taxi was, of course, the heavier vehicle and the case was that the scooter of the deceased had got stuck with the engine of the offending vehicle. So, the maxi- taxi must have received some scratches however minor it may be. The MVI report must have, therefore, disclosed that the vehicle, in question, BPI 7565 was, of course, involved in an accident. It was, therefore, incumbent on the part of the claimants (appellants) to set the report of the MVI brought on the record to consolidate their evidence regarding the alleged accident by BPI 7565 causing the death of Nand Lal Prasad. The above discussion of the evidence on record would suggest that, of course, there was no sufficient evidence on the record to hold that Nand Lal Prasad was killed in an acciden! of knock-down by the vehicle BPI 7565 owned by the respondent of this appeal. Therefore. I do not find any cogent reason to disagree with the finding of the trial court. 7. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own cost of this appeal.