Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 710 (RAJ)

N. P. Gupta v. Sukhpal Singh

2005-03-02

N.P.GUPTA

body2005
Judgment N.P. Gupta, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the appellants. 2. Assailing the impugned it is contended, firstly, that there is no evidence about the negligence of the car driver in happening of the accident. The learned Counsel read to me the statement of AW. 2, Shivtar Singh, and contended, that he is not an eye-witness of the accident, rather he came to know of the accident, when he went on the bhog, and AW. 1, the claimant, being father of the deceased, is also not an eye-witness, likewise the driver has been acquitted in the criminal case, and therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 is liable to be set aside. 3. I have considered the submission. The learned trial Court has noticed the fact, that the driver has been acquitted in the criminal case, and has then considered, that the defendant No. 1, Gurjeet Singh himself has admitted, that the accident occurred on account of the steering system of the car giving way, and that, it is not in dispute, that the accident occurred on account of the car dashing against the tree, and since the accident was sought to be explained on the basis of the failure of the steering system, it was for the defendants to prove that the accident occurred on account of the failure of the steering system. With this, it has been found, that even the MTO report has not been produced, which, if produced, could have shown, as to whether the steering system was found to have failed, or not. With this, of course, the learned trial Court has believed the evidence of AW. 2. 4. In my view, even if the evidence of AW .2 is excluded, in view of the evidence, rather defence of the driver, about the happening of the accident on account of failure of the steering system, and then failure to prove, that requisite care and caution was taken for maintaining the system, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal was in error in concluding that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the car driver. 5. 5. On 19.01.2005, when the case was listed for admission; the learned Counsel for the appellant made a categoric submission that the appellant Gurjeet Singh had filed his affidavit, and he was not at all cross-examined on that, with the result that the statement given by him in the affidavit was required to be believed and since in the affidavit, it was deposed that in order to give side to a truck, he had taken the car off the road, and when he wanted to take the car back on the road, the steering system failed, and the car hit against the tree. In view of the submission, about the witness having not been cross-examined, I directed for the record to be summoned. From perusal of the record it significantly transpires that in the original written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, the plea taken is not about explaining, as to how the accident occurred, rather the plea taken is, of a complete denial, inasmuch as, it has been specifically pleaded that on the date and time, no accident occurred, the vehicle was not being driven negligently, no FIR was lodged against the driver nor any charge-sheet was filed; rather, all the facts are wrongly pleaded by the claimants, regarding responsibility for the happening of the accident, and since Tejvinder Singh did not die, obviously the defendants cannot be held liable. Then, this written-statement, filed on 27/07/2004, has subsequently been amended, and the amended written statement has been filed on 25.08.2004, consequent upon the amendment application having been allowed on 10.08.2004; and in this amended written-statement, the plea has been taken, to the effect, that the passengers were traveling in the car, but the car was driven at a normal speed, and was taken off the road to give side to a truck, and when it was being taken back, on the road, the steering system failed, and the car dashed against a tree. This, obviously tantamounts to plea of Mechanical Break-Down; but then, the requisites, to claim the defence of mechanical break-down, like proper maintenance of the system etc., have neither been pleaded, nor any evidence has been led in that regard. This, obviously tantamounts to plea of Mechanical Break-Down; but then, the requisites, to claim the defence of mechanical break-down, like proper maintenance of the system etc., have neither been pleaded, nor any evidence has been led in that regard. Then I also find, from the record, that on 110.2004, the witness was cross-examined, and he has deposed in the cross-examination that he does not know, as to whether Rajvinder Singh had known about the failure of the steering system, or not. He also deposed that he fell unconscious, and does not know who lodged the FIR. He has also denied the suggestion that he was driving the car negligently, and at a high speed. In view of the above totality of material, I do not find any error in the finding of the learned trial Court on the question of negligence. 6. So far as the submission of the learned Counsel about the quantum of compensation awarded being excessive, it would suffice to say, that the deceased was employed as a Gram-Sevak and, accordingly to the claim petition, he was receiving a monthly salary of Rs. 4,992/-. These facts have not been specifically denied, rather only ignorance has been pleaded. In that background, the father of the deceased has clearly proved by his affidavit, that the deceased was a Government employee, and was receiving a monthly salary of Rs. 4,992/-, and has also produced his salary certificate in support of this averment, being Exhibit 1, and in cross-examination, all that has been suggested is, that it is not mentioned in Exhibit 1, as to in what department, the deceased was working, and as to when was the certificate issued. The witness has denied the suggestion about the deceased not being a Government employee. Exhibit-1 shows, that it is issued by Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti concerned, certifying the last drawn salary of the deceased to be Rs. 4,992/-. In that view of the matter, when the learned Tribunal has computed the compensation taking into account the present monthly income, and the age of the claimants, who were 47 and 45 years of age at the time of accident, instead of taking the age of the deceased who was 25 years of age at the time of accident, it cannot be said that the assessment suffers from any error in favour of the owner. 7. 7. The appeal thus has no force, and is dismissed summarily.