GULAB CHAND DHOT Vs. P.N. AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two cross-appeals have been brought against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated August 30, 1980 by which he had awarded a sum of Rs. 51,076/- as compensation with costs against respondent No. 1, Gulab Chand, and respondent No. 2, Jagdish Kumar, and had dismissed the claim against respondent No. 3, National Employees Mutual General Insurance Association. The claimant has filed the appeal for enhancement of the compensation and also for awarding the compensation against the Insurance Company. The owner of the vehicle, which was involved in the alleged accident, has challenged the award on the ground that in fact the vehicle owned by him had not caused the accident and was not involved in the accident at all.

(2.) FACTS , in brief, are that on December 26, 1970, at about 6.20 p.m., the claimant Sh. P.N. Aggarwal was injured in an accident with motor vehicle near A-2/1, Model Town, Delhi. It was the case of the claimant that the Car No. DLI 1745 owned by respondent No. 1 namely Gulab Chand and being driven by driver Jagdish Kumar, respondent No. 2, had caused the accident. It is not disputed before me that in fact the claimant had met with an accident and he received the injuries and the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of a particular car. The whole dispute between the parties is with regard to the identity of the car which was involved in the accident.

(3.) IN evidence, surprisingly, the author of the F.I.R. who had actually witnessed the accident was not examined. Sh. Guru Dutt, PW1 had appeared in witness box. He is having a tea stall near the place of accident. According to him, when he was coming from Tagore Park towards his shop, he had seen a car coming at a very high speed and causing the accident to the claimant. According to him, possibly the number of that car was DLI 1745. In cross-examination, he stated that he had made the statement to the police on the same day and had also seen Dhan Raj at the spot and he had also noted down the number of the vehicle in question and he had given the said number of the police. He deposed that probably the colour of the car was black but in cross-examination he went on to depose that he had been seeing the said car many a time being parked in a house just at some distance from the place of the accident.