Nirmala Devi v. Arvind Kumar Singh and Ors

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

SUBMIS

6.

¶8whole rec

¶9dismissing SIONS OF LEARNED COUN Learned counsel for the appe I have heard the learned counse cord of this case. The relevant portion of the a g the claim petition of the appell "9. In order to prove this PW4 Rajesh Jain and FIR ( NSELS FOR THE PARTIES ellant contends that

el for the parties and perused the award dated 16.08.2005 while lant is reproduced as under: issue there is only statement of (Exh.P11) on the file. It is not e e f t

disputed that PW4 Rajesh J Dalip Chand. PW4 Rajesh witness box has fully corro and also FIR in part, i.e. endorsement. In his cross (Exh.P11) is concerned in the written by HC Surinder K alongwith constable Gian Nagar Chowk. In the meant that injured lying admitted in On this HC Surinder Kumar after receiving the medical r and obtained the opinion injured was unfit to make a s the endorsement of the pol morning hours they receive Dalip Chand son of Banwar Board Colony, Baldev Naga Chandigarh. On receiving Kumar alongwith Constabl Chandigarh where on the app Kumar injured was declared also mentioned in the end person who witnessed the ac The FIR was recorded only which was made by him t evening on 13.03.2003 whil patrolling duty. Jain is sister's son of deceased h Jain while appearing in the oborated the version of petition , only part before the police examination so far as the FIR e police endorsement it has been Kumar that on 12.03.2003 he Chand was present at Baldev time, he received an information n Sarwal Hospital, Ambala City. reached Sarwal Hospital where ruqqa, he moved an application of doctor according to which statement. It has further come in lice that on 13.03.2003 in the ed an information that injured ri Lal, resident of 747, Housing ar, was lying admitted in PGI, this information HC Surinder le Gian Chand reached PGI, plication moved by HC Surinder d unfit to make statement. It is dorsement that at that time no ccident was present near injured. on the statement of Rajesh Jain to HC Surinder Kumar in the le said Surinder Kumar was on d e n e R n e v n . e n h n e d g , r , r s o . n e n

¶10In his cross examinat author of FIR, has admitte portion of the car hit with h been mentioned in the cross distance between him and hi 2 feet. Had PW4 Rajesh Ja uncle who was ahead of him portion of the car hit his ma seen the accident. This fact present at the time of allege the hospital of Dr. Sarwal h fact that this witness (i.e., PW Chand to Sarwal Hospital. Hospital but doctor declared statement. PW4 Rajesh examination conducted on b that he got Dalip Chand a Darwal and he (PW4 Rajesh and disclosed his particular Dalip Chand in his hospital. smashed their case because there in the hospital of Dr. S for the doctor to record the a the 'medical ruqqa' sent to p was placed on record by connected criminal case file)

¶11Not only this in th disclosed full particulars of tion PW4 Rajesh Jain, who is ed that he do not know which his maternal uncle. It has also examination of the witness that is maternal uncle was about 1 to ain been following his maternal m, he is supposed to know which aternal uncle, if he had actually shows that this witness was not ed accident. Even no record of has been produced to prove the W4) has taken the injured Dalip The police visited the Sarwal d the injured unfit to make his Jain deposed in his cross-behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 admitted in the hospital of Dr. h Jain) remained there till night to Dr. Sarwal while admitting This deposition of PW4 totally if he would have been present Sarwal, then there was no reason arrival of an unknown patient in police. (Copy of medical ruqqa court order after perusal of . e FIR PW4 Rajesh Jain has f driver and the car but in his s h o t o l h y t f e p l s - . t g y t n n a f s s

cross examination conducted deposed that he asked the na his name and except his nam at that time. It has also come witness that the name of the him before the police, where and car number have been m

¶12It has come in the ve with the injured when the p Ambala and PGI, Chandiga accident, if any, was caused FIR was got lodged disclosi and vehicle by making nec day. This all shows that the to get compensation.

¶13The challan against r by the police under Section Chand died on 16.06.2003 in were made to get the case c IPC. Firstly Dalip Chand w with alleged history of hit

12.03.2003. He was discharg condition. Thereafter, Da

16.06.2003 after a gap of thr his head, but there is no such that Dalip Chand (since dec on 12.03.2003. d on behalf of respondent No.3 ame of the driver, who disclosed me he had not disclosed anything e in the cross examination of the e driver was not got recorded by eas in the FIR name of the driver mentioned. ersion of FIR that nobody was police reached Sarwal Hospital, arh. This all depicts that the d by some other vehicle and the ing the full particulars of driver cessary arrangements after one vehicle was introduced later on respondent No.1 was submitted n 279/337/338 IPC. Said Dalip n PGI, Chandigarh but no efforts converted under Section 304-A, was taken to PGI on 13.03.2003 by a car in Ambala City on ged on 14.03.2003 in satisfactory alip Chand visited PGI on ree months with some injury on h medical record of any hospital eased) suffered any head injury d g e y r s , e e r e n d p s , n y n n l y

dismissed observed hit with h Further, th arrival of Jain, he g patient is given by appellant. ANALYS responden claimant h deserve an was gettin

¶14PW4 Rajesh Jain is in of sister of Dalip Chand and get compensation.

¶15For the reasons recor prove that the accident in q death of Dalip Chand Garg, and negligent driving of mar DL-2-CK-7393 by responden decided accordingly against the respondents." A perusal of the above sho d the claim petition on flimsy g that the author of the FIR should his maternal uncle and doubte hat Dr. Sarwal in the medical ru f an unknown person and if as pe got admitted Dalip Chand in Sa not there. Therefore, this cour learned Tribunal for dismissing . SIS OF RECORD The perusal of the written nts No.1 and 2, in para 21 re has demanded too much excess nd further in para 22 that the de ng pension as well. nterested witness being real son d as such he was introduced to rded above, claimant failed to question, which resulted in the was caused because of the rash ruti car bearing registration NO. nt No.1. Therefore, this issue is t the claimant and in favour of ows that the learned Tribunal grounds. The learned Tribunal d know which portion of the car d his presence as eye witness. uqa noted down in the record the er the statement of PW-4 Rajesh arwal Hospital but name of the rt does not accept the reasoning g the claim petition filed by the statement filed on behalf of espondents have stated that the sive amount which she does not ceased was 69 years of age and n o o e h . s f l l r . e h e g e f e t d

Dalip Ch registered the Polic informing authoritie that the p the name Chand wa admission was referr Magistrat record pe Sections causing in DL-2CK-PW-4. H Chand w PGI, Ch examinati Surgery, P the patien A perusal of Exhibit P-6 shows hand in Philadelphia Hospital, d immediately after the accident ce Station Baldev Nagar by S g admission of unknown person s having written the name of the erson, who took the injured to th of the person who was admitte as examined as PW-1, who sta n of her husband in Sarwal Hosp red to the PGI, Chandigarh, drive Ms. Shally, Additional Ahlma te, Ambala was examined as PW ertaining to FIR No.85 dated 279, 337 and 338 IPC at Po njuries to Dalip Chand by rash a -7393. Sh. Rajan Jain eye witness to He stated the factum of acciden as got admitted in Sarwal Hos handigarh. There is no majo ion. Dr. Rahul Gupta, Senior Re PGIMER, Chandigarh, was exam nt Dalip Chand came to Emerg s the admission and discharge of Ambala City. The FIR was . The medical ruqa was sent to Sarwal Hospital, Ambala City in their hospital. If, the hospital e patient, it cannot be presumed he hospital did not inform about ed. Nirmala Devi wife of Dalip ated the factum of accident and pital, Ambala City wherefrom he en by respondent No.1. ad to Court of Chief Judicial W-3 who brought the summoned d 13.03.2003 registered under olice Station Baldev Nagar for and negligent driving of car No. the incident was examined as nt. He further stated that Dalip spital and thereafter referred to or discrepancy in his cross-esident, Department of Neuro mined as PW-5, who stated that gency OPD on 13.03.2003 with f s o y l d t p d e l d r r . s p o - o t h

alleged h discharge

16.06.200 upon on 1 second di he denied due to his accidental of Dalip offending issue No. much on r 8459/- p from doin istory of hit by car in Ambala d on 14.03.2003. Thereafte 03 with a chronic subdural hema

16.06.2003 but expired on 20.06 sease is a sequel of initial head i d the suggestion that it is incorr s own negligence and his death l injuries. A perusal of the above analysis Chand Garg was caused due to g vehicle by respondent No.1 an 1 in favour of the appellant. So far as the issue No.2 is co record to show that Dalip Chand per month who retired as Head ng tuition work. a City on 12.03.2003. He was er, he visited PGI again on atoma for which he was operated .2003. He further stated that the injury. In his cross-examination rect to suggest that patient died h has no nexus with the alleged s of the record shows that death o rash and negligent driving of nd therefore, this court decides oncerned, the evidence is very d Garg was drawing a pension of d Master. He was also earning s n d e n d d h f s y f g

k

1.k

2.k

3.k

4.k

5.k

6.k

7.k

8.k k

¶27findings w licence wh So far as issue No.(iii), i.e., "W were given by learned Tribunal. hether it is valid or not the recor

W , is concerned, no However, regarding the driving rd to that effect is also on record. - o g .