Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 363 (ALL)

Poonam Yadav v. Nawab

2016-01-28

KRISHNA MURARI, RAGHVENDRA KUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This First Appeal From Order has been preferred under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by Smt. Poonam Yadav and others claimants/appellants against the award and order dated 26.10.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Bulandshahar in M.A.C.P. No. 455 of 2014 whereby the claim petition has been dismissed. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the claimant-appellants that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the testimony of P.W.2 Ashok Kumar who is an eye witness of the accident in the right perspective to draw the inference about the accident which was the result of rash and negligent driving of Santro Car bearing registration No. DL 7C.N. 4387 by its driver. 4. P.W.2 Ashok Kumar is the only eye witness of the alleged accident. 5. According to the claimants, on 5.8.2014 the deceased Upendra Singh was coming from his house on his motorcycle from Ghaziabad to Sikandrabad. At about 4 P.M. when he reached near Sachin Hotel, a Santro Car bearing No. DL-7CN-4387 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle whereby the motorcyclist Upendra Singh sustained grievous injuries and consequently died. 6. The FIR of the accident was lodged with the police on 5.8.2014 at Police Station Sikandrabad which was registered as Case Crime No. 659 of 2014 at 5.00 P.M. 7. P.W.2 Ashok Kumar vide his statement corroborated the averment of the claim petition regarding the date and time of accident with Santro Car. P.W.2 Ashok Kumar is an eye witness of the accident who has stated that there was a head on collision of Santro Car with Motorcycle of the deceased. The deceased was alone on the Motorcycle. The driver of the car who was alone, fled away from the scene of the accident. P.W.2 is stated to have viewed the accident from a distance of 10 feet. He has disclosed the colour of the Car as white. He further stated that the leg guard of the left side of the motorcycle of the deceased was broken because of the collision of car from the left side of the motorcycle. At one place he stated that the accident took place away from the charcoal road and the injured fell down deep towards left side. The police reached at the spot after 10-15 minutes of the accident. At one place he stated that the accident took place away from the charcoal road and the injured fell down deep towards left side. The police reached at the spot after 10-15 minutes of the accident. The collision was head on between the car and the motorcycle. The head light and the front indicator of the motorcycle were not broken. Distance of the police station as deposed was half km. from the place of accident. The injured-deceased was taken to the hospital by the police in a Gipsy vehicle. The witness conceded that he had informed the police about the vehicle, which caused the accident but he had not informed the police about the number of the vehicle. He further stated that he had not given any information to the family members of the deceased about the vehicle which caused the accident. He even did not give any written information to the police. He further informed the police in the hospital about the number of the vehicle which caused the accident. He took different stand in the examination-in-chief and cross examination. The Tribunal disbelieved his testimony and held that he is a planted witness and had not seen the accident. 8. From the case diary of case registered under sections 279, 304 A I.P.C. on case crime No. 659 of 2014 that on 2.10.2014. The I.O. was informed by the informer that the offending vehicle has been traced out and it was a Santro Car of white colour whose owner is a resident of Delhi. On 5.10.2014 the informer revealed the number of Santro Car as DL-7 CN-4387 and the name of its owner was revealed as Sanjay Yadav. The statement of P.W.2 Ashok Kumar was recorded by the I.O., to whom he had stated that on getting information about the accident of Upendra Singh he went to Government Hospital at Sikandrabad. His statement has not been recorded by the police as an eye witness. 9. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the testimony of P.W.2 returned a finding that the factum of accident as alleged in the petition is not established since his testimony did not inspire confidence. His statement has not been recorded by the police as an eye witness. 9. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the testimony of P.W.2 returned a finding that the factum of accident as alleged in the petition is not established since his testimony did not inspire confidence. The Tribunal has considered the submission of the claimant-appellants' counsel that the owner and the driver have admitted the accident as well as involvement of the offending vehicle and on the basis of the same, the Tribunal returned a finding regarding collusion between the claimants, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. 10. On critical appraisal of the testimony of P.W.2, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not erred in returning the finding about the veracity of the testimony of P.W.2 and further the finding regarding the factum of accident being the result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. We do not find any justification to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 11. The appeal is bereft of merits and is , accordingly, dismissed.