G.P.MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE Appellant Union of India impugns a judgment dated 21.02.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a compensation of Rs.30,25,000.00 was awarded in favour of Respondents No.1 to 5 for the death of one Jai Kumar Aggarwal who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 09.02.2002 and involved an army truck No.00D1-34130E-CF (Army Truck) owned by the Appellant.
(2.) MR. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate learned counsel for the Appellant has very passionately canvassed before me that the finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal was perverse. Since there was no negligence on the part of Respondent No.6, the Appellant's driver, the Appellant had no liability at all to pay the compensation. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that as per the Claimant's case (Respondents No.1 to 5) the deceased Jai Kumar Aggarwal was proceeding on his two wheeler No.DL-65A-8707 when he was struck by the offending vehicle from behind. Had it done so, the rear wheel of the offending vehicle would not have run over the deceased. Since it is admitted case of the parties that the deceased was run over by the left rear wheel, the Appellant's case that the deceased himself struck against the rear wheel of the offending vehicle, which was taking a turn on the left side towards New Delhi Railway Station is more probable and plausible. He contends that the Claims Tribunal largely relied on the FIR recorded on the basis of the statement of Constable Purshotam, who was allegedly on duty at New Delhi Railway Station at the time of the accident. Constable Purshotam was not produced as a witness by the Claimants and thus, the Claims Tribunal ought not to have relied on the FIR to form an opinion that the Respondent No.6 (the driver of the army truck) was responsible for causing the accident by his rash or negligent driving.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Appellant places reliance on a judgment of this Court in Geeta Rani Gupta & Ors. v. DTC & Anr. 1993 ACJ 408 where it was held that the circumstances must be taken into consideration to render finding on negligence.;