In a recent ruling, the High Court has upheld the Tribunal’s decision in a fatal accident case involving a Delhi Jal Board tanker. The claimants, including the deceased’s wife, mother, and minor daughter, sought compensation for the tragic incident. The Tribunal’s findings were crucial in determining the liability of the tanker driver in causing the accident. Now, the High Court has affirmed the Tribunal’s ruling, ensuring justice for the affected parties.
Facts
- The Tribunal found that PW-2/Vijay Dangwal was an eyewitness to the incident and confirmed that the accident was caused by the offending tanker.
- The statement of PW-6/Kundan Bhardwaj from the Ministry of Home Affairs supported the deceased’s monthly salary of Rs.29,453/-.
- The deceased was working as an Inspector in the Intelligence Bureau, establishing his income source.
- The compensation awarded by the Tribunal amounted to Rs.47,83,000/- covering various aspects like loss of income, estate, consortium, and funeral expenses.
- The witness, PW-2/Vijay Dangwal, testified that he saw the tanker being driven recklessly and hitting the deceased’s motorcycle, causing him fatal injuries.
- He mentioned that sand on the road made it difficult for the deceased to control his motorcycle, resulting in the accident.
- During cross-examination, he acknowledged that the deceased was ahead of him by 20-25 meters at the time of the accident.
- The appellants raised objections against the judgment citing earlier acquittal of the driver, incorrect reliance on witness testimony, and discrepancies in the Mechanical Inspector’s report.
- The Tribunal ruled in favor of the claimants based on the testimonies of PW-2 and the driver of the offending tanker.
- The claimants, including the deceased’s wife, mother, and minor daughter, asserted that the tanker driver hit the deceased from behind after overtaking the witness.
Issue
- The main issues to be considered in this case are:
- Determining whether Kripal Dutt Walia sustained fatal injuries on January 20, 2008, at about 11:30 PM due to the rash and negligent driving of the Delhi Jal Board tanker bearing No DL-1M-0311.
- Establishing the legal relationship of the claimants as legal heirs of the deceased Kripal Dutt Walia.
- Determining the entitlement of the petitioners to receive compensation and specifying the amount and liable party/parties.
Analysis
- The appeal lacks merit after thorough consideration of submissions and trial court records.
- The relevant observations by the tribunal regarding the accident were crucial in the decision-making process.
- The testimony of witness PW-2/Vijay Dangwal substantiated the rash and negligent behavior of the driver.
- The photographs of the accident scene indicated a narrow passage due to a heap of sand on the road.
- The driver, despite cross-examination, could not refute the claims of negligence.
- The presence of sand on the road impacting the control of the motorcycle was a key point.
- The absence of marks on the vehicle or the deposition regarding the hospital transportation do not discount the witness’s account.
- The failure to indicate the specific vehicle used for hospital transport was not sufficient to raise doubts on the witness.
- The lack of fresh damages on the motorcycle does not absolve the driver of responsibility.
- Overall, the analysis points to the driver’s negligence in causing the accident.
- The findings of the Tribunal concluding the driver of the tanker to be guilty of culpable rashness and negligence are legally sound.
- There is no evidence of any illegality, perversity, or incorrect approach in law in the Tribunal’s findings.
- The assessment of negligence and rashness by the driver is upheld by the Court.
- The Tribunal’s determination is found to be valid and justified by the Court.
Decision
- The appellant’s statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000 is forfeited to the State.
- The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is to be released to the claimants as directed by the Tribunal.
- The appeal is dismissed.
Case Title: DELHI JAL BOARD & ANR Vs. CHANDRA KALA & ORS (2024:DHC:4538)
Case Number: MAC.APP.-293/2018
