HARKHU BAI Vs. JIYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of an order passed by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raichur, whereby M. V. C. Nos. 3 and 24 of 1990 filed for payment of compensation by the appellants have been dismissed.

(2.) THE deceased Vegataram Tulcharam jatt was a driver by profession. He was on 17. 6. 1989 driving a lorry on the National highway No. 13. When he reached a place near Kushtagi, another lorry coming from the opposite direction had a head-on collision with the lorry being driven by the deceased causing extensive damage to his lorry and severe bodily injuries to the deceased to which he succumbed. M. V. C. No. 3 of 1990 was filed by the owner of the lorry for payment of compensation for the damage caused to his vehicle whereas m. V. C. No. 24 of 1990 was filed by the widow of the deceased Vegataram Tulcharam Jatt, his parents and minor son for payment of compensation. The case of the claimants in both the claim petitions was that the accident in question had taken place entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry bearing registration No. RNS 4311. The claim petitions were opposed only by the insurance company with which the offending vehicle was insured. The driver and the owner of the said vehicle remained ex parte. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed 6 issues in M. V. C. No. 3 of 1990 and 5 issues in connected M. V. C. No. 24 of 1990. These issues were by a common order dated 7. 2. 1995 answered in the negative by the Claims Tribunal resulting in the dismissal of the two claim petitions. The tribunal held that the claimants had not adduced any evidence in support of their claim that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry. In the absence of any such evidence, the question of fastening any liability on the insurance company did not, according to the Tribunal, arise. While dismissing M. V. C. No. 3 of 1990, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000 under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum in M. V. C. No. 24 of 1990. The present appeals call in question the correctness of the said order.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In support of their respective claims, the claimants-appellants in these appeals had adduced oral as also documentary evidence. The oral evidence led in M. V. C. No. 24 of 1990 comprised the deposition of PW 1 Harkhu bai who happen to be the widow of the deceased driver Vegataram Tulcharam Jatt. PW 2 Dharmchand had been examined only in his capacity as an interpreter engaged to interpret the deposition of PW 1 harkhu Bai from Marwadi language to english language. In the connected case, pw 1 was the attorney holder of the proprietor of the vehicle driven by deceased vegataram Tulcharam Jatt. According to the testimony of these witnesses, the deceased was receiving a salary of Rs. 1,500 p. m. from the employer. In addition to the oral testimony of 3 witnesses mentioned above, the claimants have also produced certain documentary evidence, inter alia, comprising a certified copy of the judgment of the J. M. F. C. Court, Kushtagi in c. C. No. 357 of 1989 by which the driver of the offending vehicle, respondent No. 1, in these appeals was convicted on his pleading guilty before the said court and sentenced to undergo imprisonment apart from payment of fine. Exh. P-2 is a copy of the F. I. R. lodged by the cleaner of the vehicle driven by the deceased Vegataram tulcharam Jatt. Exh. P-3 is the spot panchnama prepared by the police whereas exh. P-4 is the report of the Motor Vehicle inspector who had inspected both the vehicles immediately after the accident and reported that the same did not suffer from any mechanical defect.