ALI MOHMMAD KHAN Vs. PINKI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ravinder, aged 24 years, suffered injuries seemingly in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 02.11.2008 in the area of Dharam Kanta, Nahri Village, District Sonepat, Haryana and died in the consequence. His widow, two children and father, first to fourth respondents herein (claimants) instituted an accident claim case (MACT 108/2009) on 20.01.2009 seeking compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act). In the said case, it was alleged that the accident had been caused by a tractor trolley bearing registration no.HR-10K-1195 (tractor) which had hit against the motor cycle bearing registration no.DL-8S- AA 5986 driven by the deceased at the relevant point of time. The said tractor is admittedly registered in the name of the appellant, Ali Mohmmad. Khan (owner). It appears it was financed by M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., a party which was additionally shown in the array before the tribunal. The claimants? averment in the case before the tribunal was that the tractor had been driven at the relevant point of time by one, Rajuddin (impleaded as first respondent before the tribunal) in a negligent manner and that the accident had been seen by Narender (PW-2).

(2.) The appellant and Rajuddin (who is his son) filed a joint written statement before the tribunal denying involvement of the tractor in the accident or negligent driving thereof being the cause for the fatality. The claimants led evidence by examining Narender (PW-2). The tribunal?s record shows that though the said witness described the sequence of events wherein an accident had occurred involving the motor cycle and the tractor trolley loaded with bricks, he conceded during his cross-examination that there was no registration number displayed on the said vehicle. Instead, the description depicted was '555D1-AF', thereby indicating that the registration certificate had still not been received, the number having been "applied for". PW-2 also contradicted the case of the claimants by deposing that the tractor driver which had been caught after some time had disclosed his identity as one Nishad.

(3.) The tribunal seemed to be in doubt as to whether the tractor was driven by Rajuddin or not but it proceeded on the assumption that "indisputably" the death had occurred in an accident involving the tractor in question. It appears this assumption was made on the basis of certified copies of the record of the corresponding criminal case which also had been submitted.