Baldev Kishan Vs. Basanti and ors.

Baldev Kishan vs Basanti and ors.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Delhi Decided Oct 26, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/703325

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/703325
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Oct 26, 2004
Case Number: Mac. Appeal 284/2004 and C.M. Appl. 8483/2004
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Baldev Kishan

Advocate Kamlesh Kumar and; Pradeep K. Singh, Advs

Respondent

Basanti and ors.

Advocate None

Legal References

Reported In: 115(2004)DLT272

Excerpt

- .....(for short 'tribunal') in suit no. 712 of 1989 whereby the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of rs. 1,30,000/- together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent for the death of ram surat singh in an accident that occurred on 15.7.1989. 2. brief facts of the case, as noted by the tribunal are as follows :''claimants in the claim petition had pleaded that on 15.7.89 at around 9 p.m. deceased ram surat singh was coming towards palam colony on a bicycle. as he reached t point on palam road near indian oil depot, a scooter driven by respondent no. 1 at a very high speed and driven in a negligent manner struck cyclist when victim was taking right side turn towards palam colony. victim sustained multiple injuries and was removed to safdarjung hospital and finally he died on 18.7.89. cause of accident was a negligent driving on the part of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 being owner of scooter was vicariously liable with respondent no. 1. no interim award was prayed and a compensation of rs. 5,50,000/- was prayed on a plea that deceased had a large family including wife and four daughter and a minor son and particularly or a young children after the death of their father no one was to look after them financially.''3. it is submitted by counsel for the appellant that there is nothing on record to show that the vehicle of the petitioner was involved in the accident. he, thereforee, claims that the award has been unjustly made against.4. heard counsel for the appellant and gone through the record of the case. a perusal of the testimony of pw-3, who is an eye-witness, leaves a little or no doubt that the accident took place in the manner explained by him and that the two-wheeler scooter of the petitioner was involved in the accident. further, a copy of the fir available on record shows that the victim, ram surat singh, himself gave a statement that the two-wheeler in question rammed into him.5. i have no doubt in my mind that the order under challenge has carefully.....

Full Judgment

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. MAC. Appeal No. 284 of 2004 is directed against judgment and order dated 18.3.2004 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') in Suit No. 712 of 1989 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent for the death of Ram Surat Singh in an accident that occurred on 15.7.1989.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the Tribunal are as follows :

''Claimants in the claim petition had pleaded that on 15.7.89 at around 9 p.m. deceased Ram Surat Singh was coming towards Palam Colony on a bicycle. As he reached T point on Palam Road near Indian Oil Depot, a scooter driven by respondent No. 1 at a very high speed and driven in a negligent manner struck cyclist when victim was taking right side turn towards Palam Colony. Victim sustained multiple injuries and was removed to Safdarjung hospital and finally he died on 18.7.89. Cause of accident was a negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 being owner of scooter was vicariously liable with respondent No. 1. No interim award was prayed and a compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- was prayed on a plea that deceased had a large family including wife and four daughter and a minor son and particularly or a young children after the death of their father no one was to look after them financially.''

3. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that there is nothing on record to show that the vehicle of the petitioner was involved in the accident. He, thereforee, claims that the Award has been unjustly made against.

4. Heard counsel for the appellant and gone through the record of the case. A perusal of the testimony of PW-3, who is an eye-witness, leaves a little or no doubt that the accident took place in the manner explained by him and that the two-wheeler scooter of the petitioner was involved in the accident. Further, a copy of the FIR available on record shows that the victim, Ram Surat Singh, himself gave a statement that the two-wheeler in question rammed into him.

5. I have no doubt in my mind that the order under challenge has carefully analysed the material on record, suffers from no defect on evaluation of evidence. This is the only question argued before me which stands answered, I dismiss MAC. Appeal No. 284 of 2004 and C.M. Appl. 8483 of 2004 No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2004 Same Parties Baldev Kishan vs Basanti and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J.

Motor Vehicles