- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 6.10.2010, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar, whereby the learned Judge has granted a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 6.25% per annum to the claimants-respondents, the appellant, the owner of the offending vehicle, has approached this Court.
(2.) SHORTLY the facts of the case are that the claimant-respondent No.1, filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal against the non-claimants No.1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, for compensation on account of death of her son, Prakash. According to the claimant, the motor accident occurred on 13.03.2007 at about 7AM. The non-claimant-appellant filed written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed three issues. Both the parties adduced their evidence, oral as well as documentary. In order to buttress her contention, the claimant-respondent examined two witnesses including herself and submitted certain documentary evidence. Whereas the driver of the vehicle, Bhagirath Singh was examined as NAW-1. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal passed the award, as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. Indresh Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, although the appellant has raised the objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal has not decided the said issue. Secondly, the material witnesses, such as Bhawani Singh, on whose report the FIR was registered, has not been produced as a witness. Therefore, the material witnesses have been withheld. Thirdly, Smt. Jakori Devi (AW-1) is not an eye witness of the alleged accident. Moreover, Nirmal Kumar (AW-2), who claims to be an eye witness of the accident, is basically an interested witness as he is related to Smt. Jakori Devi. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error while relying on the testimony of Nirmal Kumar in order to conclude that the negligence was that of the bus driver. Fourthly, the bus driver, Bhagirath Singh (ANW-1) has emphatically denied that any accident had occurred with his bus. This particular piece of evidence has been totally over looked by the learned Tribunal. Lastly, relying on the case of Manju Devi & Anr. Vs. Musafir Paswan & Anr. [2005 ACJ 99], the learned counsel has contended that the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- is too high as in the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted a compensation of only Rs.2,25,000/-. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat, who has appeared as caveator in this case, has contended that Smt. Jakori Devi (AW-1) has clearly stated, in her testimony, that earlier she had lost her husband and now she has lost her son. Therefore, she is presently residing with her parents in village Bharkasali, Tehsil and District Sikar. Therefore, she had proven the fact that she is presently i.e. at the time of filing of the claim petition, was residing in Village Bharkasali, Tehsil and District Sikar. Hence, she was competent to file her petition before the Tribunal at Sikar. Thus, the issue with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal is irrelevant. Secondly, the appellant has not been able to prove the fact that Nirmal Kumar is related to Smt. Jakori Devi. Therefore, he cannot be termed as an interested witness. In fact, in his testimony, he has clearly stated that he had reached the site of the accident immediately and had described the condition of the accident. Thus, he is an independent witness, whose testimony has not been shaken in the cross-examination. Hence, the learned Tribunal was justified in relying upon his testimony. Thirdly, the site plan itself shows that the bus had dashed against tree and had turned turtle. The site plan is sufficient to prove the fact that the bus had struck the tree. Thus, the negligence of the bus driver is writ large. Hence, he has supported the impugned award. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. A bare perusal of the testimony of Smt. Jakori Devi (AW-1) clearly revels that in her testimony she had stated that having lost her husband and son, she was living with her parents, who were resided in village Bharkasali, Tehsil and District Sikar. Thus, she was entitled to submit the claim petition before the learned Tribunal at Sikar. Therefore, the question of the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal looses all significance.
(3.) ALTHOUGH, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since Smt. Jakori Devi and Nirmal Kumar happen to be the resident of same place, therefore, it can be presumed that they are related to each other. However, such an argument only needs to be uttered to be dismissed. For, there is no presumption in law that those who are living in the same locality are related to each other. In fact, the affidavits of both the witnesses clearly show that whereas Smt. Jakori Devi claims that she is presently residing at village Bharkasali, Tehsil and District Sikar, Nirmal Kumar claims to be a resident of Dhaka Ki Dhani, Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove the fact that Niram Kumar is related to Smt. Jokari Devi. Hence, he cannot be termed as an interested witness. In his testimony, Nirmal Kumar (AW-2) has clearly stated that he was running a "Kirana" shop near the place of the accident. He further claims that on 13.03.2007, around 9:00 PM, while he was sitting in his shop, a bus, bearing registration No.RJ-23-P-0991, belonging to the appellant's Trust, was being driven rashly and negligently. As soon as the bus reached near Dhaka Ki Dhani, it went out of control and the bus hit a tree. Consequently, many of the school children received injuries. He also narrates that he and other persons, in the neighborhood, rushed to the rescue to the children and took them to the hospital at Nawalgarh. Although in his cross-examination, he claims that he reached the site of the accident after five minutes, but merely because he reached the site of the accident after five minutes, would not dilute the fact that he has seen the occurrence, that he rushed to the rescue of the children and that he has narrated the conditions prevalent at the site of the accident in his testimony. Since he is an independent witness, the learned Tribunal was justified in relying upon his testimony. His testimony is further corroborated by the site plan. In the site plan, it has also shown that the bus had hit the tree. Therefore, the concept of doctrine of "res ipsa loquitor", a thing speaks for itself, is applicable in the present case. After all, in the natural course of occurrence, buses do not collided with a standing tree. Thus, the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted for concluding that the negligence lies squarely on the shoulder of the bus driver. ;