Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 648 (PNJ)

Satya Devi v. Jugal Kishore

2014-03-27

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants, challenging the impugned Award dated 20.1.1998, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar (in short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by them was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants on the ground that the name of the driver and number of the offending vehicle do not find mention in the DDR. It is further submitted that the photocopy of the passport, which was not duly proved has been relied upon and Sukhdev Singh, who appeared as PW2, has wrongly been stated as interested witness. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Insurance Company submits that neither any driver was named, nor number of the vehicle was mentioned in the DDR. No FIR was registered. There is no complaint before the authority that version given by PW2 Sukhdev Singh was not recorded properly. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the appellants. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 4. The learned Tribunal framed issue No. 1 "Whether Kishan Singh died as a result of accident dated 7.1.1994 caused by respondent No. 2 while driving truck No. HP-20-1451 rashly and negligently? OPP" While deciding the same, the learned Tribunal in para No. 7 recorded a categoric findings, reads as under:-- "7. Ex. P3 the DDR was recorded on the statement of Sukhdev Singh PW2. In this DDR, it has been recorded that due to darkness, the number of the truck etc. could not be noted down. RW1 while appearing in the witness box has categorically deposed that he was not in India when the accident had taken place. He had left for Kuwait on 20.12.1993. In support of his plea he has attached photocopy of passport as Ex. R1. This document is not properly proved as the original was not produced. Leaving aside this document, the story put-forth by RW1 finds corroboration from DDR Ex. P3. Although a DDR is not a substantive piece of evidence, but it has a corroboration value. In support of his plea he has attached photocopy of passport as Ex. R1. This document is not properly proved as the original was not produced. Leaving aside this document, the story put-forth by RW1 finds corroboration from DDR Ex. P3. Although a DDR is not a substantive piece of evidence, but it has a corroboration value. Since the number of the truck and the name of the driver respondent No. 2 was not mentioned in the DDR, the story put forward by RW1 became believes i.e. PW2 while appearing in the witness box has not been able to explain as to how he came to know about the number of the truck and the name of the driver, specially when he had stated before the police that due to darkness he could not note down the number of the truck. The DDR is the first version given by a complainant regarding an event or an accident. PW2 has no where deposed that he had filed any complaint regarding incorrect recording of the DDR. While appearing as witness also this PW Sukhdev Singh has not deposed that he had disclosed the truck number and the name of the driver to the police but they had not recorded the same in the DDR. He has simply denied the suggestion given to him that he had not witnessed the occurrence and i.e. why he did not name the driver and the truck number in the DDR. He is an interested witness being the brother of the deceased. He is interested in the success of his case. Statement of PW2 does not inspire confidence and is not believable. Even no criminal proceedings were initiated against respondent No. 2. Accordingly, I hold that the claimants have failed to prove this issue to the effect that Kishan Singh died as a result of accident dated 7.1.1994 caused by respondent No. 2 while driving truck No. HP-20-1451 rashly and negligently." 5. In the DDR, it has been mentioned that due to darkness, he could not note down the number of the truck. No explanation has come on record as to how the name of the driver and number of the vehicle came to his notice. In the DDR, it has been mentioned that due to darkness, he could not note down the number of the truck. No explanation has come on record as to how the name of the driver and number of the vehicle came to his notice. Another aspect of the matter is that the driver of the offending vehicle appeared as RW1 has placed on record the photocopy of his passport, which finds mentioned that he had left India on 20.12.1993, much prior to the accident. In the absence of any connecting evidence as well as in the absence of FIR, the statement of Sukhdev Singh has rightly been disbelieved by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the accident is not proved. In view of the above, this Court finds no scope for interference in the well reasoned award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. Appeal allowed.