IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of credible evidence to establish composite negligence in a motor vehicle accident.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral) - This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the Award dated 13.04.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in Suit No.20/2015, titled Archana Maheshwari & Ors. v. Hira Lal Yadav & Ors..

2. It was the claim of the claimants/appellants herein before the learned Tribunal that on the intervening night of 23/24.02.2014 at around 2:30 a.m., the deceased Mr.Kaushal Maheshwari was travelling from Daula Kuan bus stand to Sarai Kale Khan bus stand on the TSR make bajaj, bearing no.DL-1RK-1893, which was driven by the respondent no.2 herein and owned by the respondent no.3 herein. When the TSR reached gate no.1 of Pragati Maidan at around 2:30 a.m., it was hit by a car from behind. The TSR overturned due to the impact of the said accident and the deceased suffered fatal injuries, while the respondent no.2 also suffered injuries. On the basis of the statement of respondent no.2, an FIR was registered against the unknown vehicle. The appellants claimed that even the TSR was being driven by the respondent no.2 herein in a rash and negligent manner. The Claim Petition was filed claiming the accident to be a result of composite negligence of the two vehicles, that is, the car and the TSR. Claim petition was, however, filed only against the driver, owner, and the Insurance Company of the TSR.

3. In support of their claim of TSR being also driven in a rash and negligent manner, the appellants produced Mr.Ghanshyam Choudhary (PW-2) as an alleged eyewitness of the accident in question. The learned Tribunal refused to believe PW-2 as an eyewitness to the accident in question. The finding of the learned Tribunal on this aspect is reproduced herein below:

"12. However, PW2 Sh. Ghanshyam Chaudhary is being claimed to be an eye witness of the above accident and he has also tendered on record his examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit Ex.PW2/A and a copy of his voter identity card as Ex.PW2/1. According to the depositions made by him in his above affidavit, during the night of accident he was returning back to his home after completing his work and was standing near the above gate of Pragati Maidan when all of a sudden, the above TSR came at very high speed and turned down and the passenger sitting inside got buried under the said TSR. He has also stated specifically in the said affidavit that above accident took place due to sole negligence of driver of the above TSR.

13. But on appreciation of testimony of this witness as a whole and in light of the other evidence brought on record, this tribunal is not at all satisfied regarding claim being made by the above eye-witness about witnessing the above accident and it apparently appears to this tribunal that he is a false witness planted in this case by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners himself. It is so because this witness has not been able to give any satisfactory explanation during his cross examination to satisfy this tribunal about his presence at the spot at the relevant time of accident and the claim of witnessing the said accident and rather, he has revealed his old association with Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. He was not a summoned witness in this case and he came to depose only on request of Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and he also could not reply as to how he came to know about the present proceedings. The relevant extracts of the depositions made by this witness during his cross-examination are being reproduced herein below:

"I am not the summoned witness and I have come to depose today on the request of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.

I have not read the complete affidavit and I have just seen a little bit it is correct that my statement was not recorded about the accident by the police in the criminal case, I did not make any call to the police about the accident on 100 number. In