R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS FAO has been filed by Smt. Krishna Devi and her daughter Saroj Bala and they are claiming compensation with regard to the death of Sunder Lal who was a young person of 49 years at the time of accident which took place on 3.9.1996. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper and was a resident of Village Nachraon and posted at Excise and Taxation Office, Shahbad. The accident took place at Thanesar near Gurdwara Chhati Patshahi at about 10/11 AM. It is alleged by the claimants that Randhir Singh-respodent No. 1 was driving Scooter No. HYQ- 4795 in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing horn and hit Sunder Lal while he was going on the correct side of the road. On account of the injuries suffered by Sunder Lal, he died subsequently. It was further alleged by the claimants that they were depending on the income of the deceased. The remaining children of Sunder Lal are major and married and are arrayed as respondents 4 to 8 in the trial Court. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs. 854.10 per month and they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 took a joint stand that the scooter mentioned in the claim petition was never involved in the accident and that they were falsely arrayed as respondents on account of the party faction. The Insurance Company also adopted the same stand. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues Nos. 1 to 5 as under :- "1. Whether the death of Sunder Lal took place due to rashness and negligence on the part of Randhir Singh in driving Scooter No. HYQ-4795 ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled to and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether the petition is barred by time ? OPR 4. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident ? OPR 5. Relief. Parties led evidence in support of their case. Issue No. 1 was decided against the claimants. On account of the decision of issue No. 1, the claimants were not awarded any compensation. Issues 3 and 4 were however decided against respondents as they did not press these issues. In view of the finding given by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 the claim petition was dismissed. Not satisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed.
(2.) I have heard Miss Anju Vashisht, Advocate, for the appellants and Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2 and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. In this case, in order to prove issue No. 1, the claimants relied upon the solitary statement of Sant Ram-AW2 besides copy of FIR Exhibit A-1 and copy of list of witnesses Exhibit A-2 which was filed by the police against Randhir Singh. The learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1 against the claimants for the reasons given in paras 7 to 14 of the impugned award:- "7. The death of Sunder Lal is not refuted by the respondents and is also well proved from the statement of Krishna Devi AW1 and copy of post mortem report Exhibit A4. The material question to be seen in whether the death of Sunder Lal resulted due to the accident with Scooter No. HYQ-4795. 8. For the settlement of this controversy, the claimants depend upon the statement of Sant Ram AW2. On going through his statement, I have not been able to accept it. I find that his statement is a bundle of lies and it cannot be relied upon. To begin with Sant Ram described himself as resident of Village Bartoli and he denied the suggestion that he was resident of village Jhangla. However, as the cross examination developed, the witness admitted that he was owning a plot in village Jhangla and was having a vote there. He further conceded that Rulda Ram of village Jhangla is his cousin and Charan Dass is the son of Rulda Ram. Charan Dass is the son-in-law of Sunder Lal deceased. Krishna Devi AW1 also conceded that her daughter Sulochana is married to Charan Dass in village Jhangla and Rulda Ram is father of Charan Dass. Reverting to the statement of Sant Ram AW2, it would be noticed that he admitted having attended the marriage of Charan Dass in village Nachroan. That marriage took place earlier to the accident of the present case. Sant Ram had started knowing Sunder Lal at the time of the said marriage. Obviously, when the accident took place, Sant Ram AW2 knew Sunder Lal very well. 9. In this background, the conduct of Sant Ram AW2 is absolutely unnatural. He saw the accident and found that Sunder Lal had been hit by a Scooter. Inspite of all that and having known Sunder Lal, Sant Ram did not accompany Sunder lal to the hospital. Sant Ram was himself having a rickshaw but some other rickshaw was requisitioned to take Sunder Lal to the hospital. Sant Ram did not inform anyone about the accident, nor he lodged the report with the police. So much so, it took him 15/20 days to make statement before the police. I have no doubt in my mind that Sant Ram was not at all present at the spot. If he was really there and had been seen the accident, Sant Ram would have immediately taken the injured to the hospital and his death having occurred, Sant Ram would have informed the police to lodge the report and he would have also taken steps to inform the relatives of Sunder Lal about his death. The highly unnatural conduct on the part of Sant Ram shows that he has been purposely set up to support this claim petition. The version was coined that Sant Ram was resident of Bartoli and plied rickshaw at Thanesar. This was probably done to give him a colour of independent witness. 10. As per FIR, Exhibit A1 Sunder Lal appears to have been taken to the nursing home of Dr. Sobti, where he died and he was subsequently identified as an employee of Excise and Taxation Department. If Sant Ram had seen the occurrence he would not have allowed Sunder Lal to die as an unidentified person. Sant Ram spoke of having hired a rickshaw which he was plying at Thanesar in those days. He was unable to give the name of the person from whom he took the rickshaw. Sant Ram was plying rickshaw 1-1/2 years before the accident. Still he could not name the Cinema, near which the shop was located from where Sant Ram had hired the rickshaw. Sant Ram stated that he used to live in village Bahri with Kura, who was his cousin. Significantly, father's name of Kura was not known to Sant Ram nor he was in a position to tell the number and the ward of the house of Kura. 11. From the above discussion, I find no alternative but to reject the testimony of Sant Ram AW2. 12. The learned counsel for the claimant contends that Randhir Singh respondent is standing trial in a criminal case and so he was responsible for his accident. This argument has no force. Randhir Singh cannot be made liable for the accident simply because he stands challaned in a criminal case. A presumption of innocence is there is favour of Randhir Singh till he is finally convicted by the Criminal Court. So far, Randhir has not been convicted by the Criminal Court. 13. In view of the state of evidence of the claimants, the evidence of the respondents does not require any discussion on this aspect of the matter. At any rate, apart from the denial made by Randhir Singh RW1, it is but apt that statement of Sant Ram RW2 be referred to. As per the contents of the claim petition, Shiv Ram alias Singh Ram was the other eye witness. The claimants gave him up as unnecessary. He has examined by the respondents and he said in clear terms that in his presence no such accident as set up in the claim petition took place. He also gave lie to the statement of Sant Ram by saying that the latter was a permanent resident of Village Jhangla and was working as Siri with Lal Ram Saini. Sant Ram never plied rickshaw. Singh Ram further explained that inspite of his opposition, he was named as witness in the accident case at the instance of Charan Dass. Thus, whatever be the value of the statement of Sant Ram AW2, it stands effectively rebutted by the evidence of Singh Ram RW2. 14. In the result, I conclude issue No. 1 against the claimants."
(3.) A reading of the above would show that the statement of Sant Ram AW2 has been disbelieved merely on the ground that he did not accompany the injured to the hospital and he was remotely related with the deceased Sunder Lal. I am in agreement with the reasons given by the Tribunal. Let us again scrutinise the evidence of AW2 Sant Ram in order to find out whether his statement can be discarded as rejected by the learned Tribunal. Sant Ram deposed that on the date of accident he was plying a rickshaw in Thanesar and about 10/11 months ago at about 11 AM he was going towards University side and he was near Gurdwara Chhati Patshahi. Sunder Lal whose name he came to know subsequently was going ahead of him on foot. A scooter came from behind which overtook his rickshaw and then hit Sunder Lal. The scooter was being driven by Randhir Singh, respondent present in Court. Being illiterate, he could not give the number of the scooter. One more person was also sitting on the pillion of the scooter. The scooter was at a fast speed. Sunder Lal received injuries and fell down. He got injury on his head. Randhir Singh took Sunder in a rickshaw to a doctor in the shops of the Gurdwara. After two days he came to know that Sunder Lal had died. On the date of accident after seeing it he went ahead. Cross-examination had been conducted against this gentleman. His statement has been disbelieved merely for 2 reasons which have been quoted above. It has been stated by this witness that he belongs to Bartoli, therefore, he is a chance witness. I am not in concurrence with the reasons given by Tribunal. Sunder Lal is a rickshaw puller by profession. In order to earn their livelihood, the labourers have come to the cities in order to perform various types of jobs including pulling of rickshaw or pulling of rehras. A poor man has no choice of business. His primary concern is to earn his livelihood for his survival. If he is illiterate, his statement cannot be disbelieved only on this ground. The basic point for consideration would be that why he is making a statement in favour of the family of the deceased. It has come in the cross examination of the witnesses that Rulda Ram is the cousin of Sant Ram-AW2 and Charan Dass is the son of Rulda Ram. Charan Dass is son-in-law of Sunder Lal. Krishna Devi AW1 also conceded that her daughter Sulochna is married to Charan Dass in village Jhangla and Rulda Ram is father of Charan Dass. This statement, is not enough to reject the testimony of Sunder Lal. He has no direct interest in this case. If he knew Sunder Lal deceased, his testimony cannot be rejected on this sole ground. Had this witness been tutored to say some facts in favour of the claimants, he could easily give the number of the scooter. The witness is categorical on the fact that the respondent was driving a scooter. After causing the accident, he stopped the scooter and he removed the injured to the doctor by rickshaw. Later on, the injured was taken to the hospital.;