Mr. Varun Kumar, Advocate & Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate v. State of Haryana ...

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred against the order of MACT dated 20th February, 1992 whereby the claim petition filed by the injured and later on pursued by his legal heirs (LRs) was dismissed.

2. Injured had met with an accident on 16th March, 1972 near Bus Stand at Mall Road. In the claim petition, he alleged that this accident took place due to negligence of driver of bus no. HR-A – 8938, belonging to Haryana Roadways as the bus driver struck his motorcycle from behind and the bus was being driven rashly and negligently. The bus driver had not blown horn and tried to overtake the motorcycle with the result the left front bumper of the bus hit rear portion of the motorcycle, which resulted in grievous injuries to the petitioner. The petitioner examined two witnesses viz. Sampooran Singh PW-2 and other Chander Prakash PW-8; both claimed to be eye witnesses. However, they admitted that none of them removed 2010:DHC:2001 injured to the hospital despite the fact that PW-2 was having a three wheeler scooter with him. The petitioner was partly cross examined however, before he could be cross examined he died and his LRs were brought on record. Another factor which came on record was that after the report of accident, the bus was seized by police and an FIR was registered. When police went to record statement of the injured, the injured made a statement to the police that the accident had not taken place due to negligence of the bus driver but the accident had taken place per chance as he was trying to save a pedestrian, who had come on the road and while saving him, he along with motorcycle fell and received injuries. This statement was put to the injured during his testimony in the part cross examination and he did not deny making this statement nor he denied his signatures on the statement. He rather stated that signatures appeared to be his.

3. The learned Tribunal observed that in view of the statement of the witnesses and the fact that in this case no challan was filed against the driver of bus since the investigation made by police showed that the driver of bus was not negligent, it was not a case where the appellant (now deceased) had suffered injuries because of being hit by the bus due to negligent driving of the driver but it was a case where accident had taken place due to different circumstances as the injured, in an effort to save the pedestrian, fell down from his motorcycle. He dismissed the claim petition.

4. It is argued by the Counsel for the appellant that Tribunal should not have relied on the statement of injured made to the police regarding accident and should have believed PW-2 & PW-8 who had testified as to how accident had taken place.

5. I consider that this argument cannot stand. PW-2 & PW-8 do not seem to be eye witnesses of the accident. They did not make statement to the police. Had any of them present at the spot and seen the accident happening, he would have made some effort to either call the police or to remove the injured to the hospital. Moreover, the petitioner had not proved in this case the inspection report of motorcycle or the bus to show that the bus had actually hit the motorcycle due to which motorcycle fell down I therefore consider that there is no force in this appeal.

6. The Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident had not taken place due to negligence of the bus driver and the Tribunal rightly relied upon the statement made by the injured himself soon after the accident when the injuries and the pains of injuries were still afresh in the mind of the injured but he stated that the truth and said that the accident had happened because he was trying to save a pedestrian and not because of fault of driver. The appeal is hereby dismissed. April 13, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. vn