Court No. - 24
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2440 of 2008 Appellant :- Union Of India & Another Respondent :- Mohd. Akhtar & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Singh AND Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2441 of 2008 Appellant :- Union Of India & Another Respondent :- A. Rehman & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Singh
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. These two appeals arises out of one accident and the issues are common. Thus, both the appeals are being decided together.
One Mohd. Sahnawaj and Mohd. Rashid were riding on Motor Cycle U.P. 20-K-7380 from Nagina to Dhampur route, and at about 05:00 P.M. they met with an accident with Truck No. 01-D-130269 owned by the Ministry of Defence. In the said accident Mohd. Sahnawaz and Mohd. Rashid suffered injuries and died.
The Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 186 of 2005 was instituted for the compensation of death of Mohd. Sehnawaj and Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 187 of 2005 was instituted for the compensation of death of Mohd. Rashid.
The claimants instituted the claim-petition on the ground that the motorcycle was being driven cautiously and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck the accident had occurred.
The claim petition was contested by the Union of India by filing written statement contending therein that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle and not due to negligence of the driver of the truck. Besides the above, Union of India had taken other grounds to deny to the payment of compensation to the claimants.
The learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals have assailed the finding of the Tribunal on the issue no. 1 wherein the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to sole negligence of driver of the truck.
The counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants has produced the driver of the truck DW-1 Pramod Lodhe and DW-2 Hawaldar J Srinivasan who were the eye witnesses of the accident who had stated before the Tribunal on oath that the accident was caused due to negligence of driver of the motorcycle. He contends that the Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the testimony of eye witnesses produced by the appellants and believing the witness of claimants in deciding the issue no. 1 against the appellants.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
The Tribunal in deciding the issue has considered the testimony of PW-2 Mohd. Yaseen who was an eye witness and was produced by the claimant to prove that the accident had occurred due to negligence of driver of truck. The Tribunal held that the witness of the claimant PW-2 Mohd. Yaseen was an independent witness, whereas the witnesses of the appellants DW-1 Pramod Lodhe and DW- 2 Hawaldar J Srinivasan were interested witness as they were employee of the Union of India.
In this backdrop, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the testimony of PW-2 Mohd. Yaseen was reliable as he was an independent witness, whereas the testimony of DW-1 Pramod Lodhe and DW-2 Hawaldar J Srinivasan being employee of the Union of India could not be testimony of independent witness. Thus, relying upon the testimony of PW-2 Mohd. Yaseen, the Tribunal held the negligence of driver of truck in the accident.
In the opinion of the Court, the finding of the Tribunal in deciding issue no. 1 on the basis of testimony of PW-2 Mohd. Yaseen is correct as it is obvious DW-1 Pramod Lodhe and DW-2 Hawaldar J Srinivasan were employee of Union of India and would not give any testimony against the interest of their employer, i.e., Union of India.
Besides the above, no other point had been pressed by the counsel for the appellant.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid fact, both the appeals lacks merit and are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 12.9.2018 Ishan