Shree Nand Motor Workshop
The first question for decision is whether the deceased died as a result of the accident arising out of the rash and negligent driving. The factum of accident is not disputed. The respondents have not examined any witness. The driver of the vehicle i.e. respondent No. I has also not been produced. It is in evi-dence that there were two occuapants of the vehicle at the time of accident and those occupants have also not been produced. Evidence of the driver and the two occupiants of the taxi was material and good evidence to rebut the claim of the appellants but they have not been produced. The appellants on the other hand have examined three witnesses besides the widow of the deceased. Public Witness 1 Dr. Bishnu Kumar, Maulana Azad Medical College, deposes Aat he conducted post mortem examination on February 12, 1968 on the body of Shree Nand Motor Workshop In his opinion death was due to intracranial haemorrhage and fracture skull consequent to head injury which was caused by some blunt object or by striking with force on the road side. He also deposes that they can be caused by a vehicular accident. The copy of the post mortem report is Ex. Public Witness 1/A attested by him. This witness was not cross-examined at all. Public Witness 2 Badlu Shree Nand Motor Workshop and Public Witness 3 Shree Nand Motor Workshop are two eye witnesses. Badlu Shree Nand Motor Workshop that he has been living in a jhuggi near chowki No. He was present outside his jhuggi. He saw Shree Nand Motor Workshop deceased coming back to his jhugi from across the road after washing his hands. Deceased had crossed more than half of the road when a taxi from Sarai Rohilla side came at a very high speed, hit him and as a .result of the impact he fell down. He further de-poses that the taxi after the accident stopped after a long distance. That the driver did not blow the horn and that he did not apply brakes.
(5) He further states that Shree Nand Motor Workshop died after two/three days and the matter was reported to the police. In crossexamination he admits that the width of the road is 8 to 10 feet, that it is a puce road, that there is no traffic on the said road and this road leads from Sarai Rohilla to Shakti Nagar and that there is light on the road side. He further says that the road was straight and there was no car near the place of impact and there was no traffic at that time. He also states that his and the houses of other are situated at a short distance from the road and that the water tap is across the road. He further says that he had seen the taxi striking the deceased. He says that he had not gone into his jhuggi when the accident took place. On hearing the noise of impact he turned around and saw Shree Nand Motor Workshop having fallen on the edge of the road towards jhugi side. He further deposes that there were two passengers in the taxi besides the driver and that the taxi stopped at a distance of about 15 feet. The witness accompanied the injured to the hospital with the police. Siri Shree Nand Motor Workshop Public Witness 3 states that he was standing in front of his hut on the road near the side of accident, that Shree Nand Motor Workshop deceased was his neighbour. That after making water he was washing his hands from the water tap. That Shree Nand Motor Workshop Singh was returning to his jhugi and he had crossed more than half of the road when he was hit by a taxi which was coming from Sarai Rohilla side at a fast speed without blowing any horn. He further says that as a ‘result of impact the deceased had fallen on the road and started bleeding. . He further states that Fateh Singh and Shree Nand Motor Workshop were present on the road. He further says that the name of the driver was ascertained and that police arrived at the spot after sometime and thatShree Nand Motor Workshop died in the hospital. In his cross-examination this witness admits that it was a moon lit night. That Mumicipal lights were on, that road is straight up to 100 yards on both sides, that there was no traffic on the road at that time. That his jhugi was at a distance of 8 to 10 feet, that he had seen the car coming before the impact at a distance of about 50 yards from the place of accident. He farther says thatShree Nand Motor Workshop was washing his hands on the tap at that time which is about 10 feet away from the edge of the road, that the deceased fell down on the front side of the car after the impact and that he was not run over by the car. That the front portion of the oar had struck the deceased. He also says that besides the driver two other persons were sitting in the taxi. He also says that Badlu Ram Public Witness was present at that time sad that the deceased was taken to the hospital. Besides this evidence appellant No.1, widow of the deceased also examined herself as a witness. She deposes that Ram Singh was her husband aged about 45 years at the time of accident, that he was running a workshop at Roshanara. Road, Delhi and earning about Rs. 500 per month. That the appellants were being maintained by him. She gives her age as 55 years at the time of her statement i.e. November, 23, 1972 and ages of her sons as 25, 23 and 19 years. In .her cross-examination she admits that her son Harbhajan Singh has been working in the workshop of the deceased and that he is married and now living separately. She also says that Balbir Singh the second son has been living with her but working with his elder brother Harbhajan Singh and that he has been earning about Rs. 100.00 – Rs. 150. She also says that Jagir Singh, her third son is a student and an apprentice but he does not earn anything. She as not aware if her husband used to pay income tax. She does not know if her husband was maintaining accounts. She says that her husband used to tell her .that he was earning Rs. 500 per month. This is the only evidence on behalf of the appellants claimants. As already .stated there is no evidence on behalf of the respondents. Both the eye witnesses Badlu Ram and Shri Ram were present at the time of accident. Both had seen the taxi .coming from Sarai Rohilla side. The taxi struck Ram Singh when he had already crossed more than half of the road and that the taxi stopped after a dist-ance of about 15 feet. According to the report of the doctor Pw 1 Bishnu Kumar the injuries were on the right side of the head. It is aiso in evidence that the taxi driver did not blow horn, that the road straight near the place of accident and there was not traffic at that time. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the two witnesses are not reliable. I do not agree.