Full Text
Date of
JUDGMENT
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
………..Appellant
Through: Ms.Rameeza Hakim, Advocate.
Through: Mr.S.K.Pandey, Advocate.
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. This appeal has impugned the award dated 7.4.2010 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs.18,56,326/- had been awarded in favour of the claimants of the deceased; these were under the head of pecuniary damages as also non-pecuniary. Interest has been awarded at 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the of notice of deposit to the claimants. 2011:DHC:3587
2. The present petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as the “M.V.Act”). On 10.8.2007 the deceased Raj Kumar while travelling on his motorcycle suffered an accident with an another motorcycle pursuant to which he fell down and sustained injuries; he succumbed to his injuries and was declared dead. Oral and documentary evidence was led. PW-2 was the eye witness. Bone of contention in this appeal is that Pw-2 was a planted witness and this is clear from his cross-examination; his version could not have been relied upon; if this statement is discredited the impugned award is liable to be set aside. Arguments have been rebutted. Record shows that PW-2 had filed his affidavit Ex.PW-2/A. He had admitted that on the day of the accident he had noted the number of the offending vehicle on a slip which he had given to the investigating officer; the case of his friend Kishan Lal was with the same investigating officer; he denied the suggestion that he was an introduced witness.
3. From the record it has emanated that the accident had occurred on 10.8.2007; FIR No.155/2007 had been registered under Section 279/304A of the IPC at police station Parliament Street. Charge sheet had been filed on 31.8.2007. Name of the eye witness (PW-2) had been mentioned in the charge sheet. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that PW-2 had surfaced only on 26.10.2009 is thus contrary to the record; his name found mention in the charge sheet; even otherwise a sentence from here and there cannot be picked up to discredit a witness; testimony of PW-2 was rightly relied upon by the Tribunal. The Award has not been impugned on any other ground; it calls for no interference. Appeal is without any merit. The appeal as also pending application is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J. JULY 18, 2011 nandan