MOHD HANOOFA Vs. MOHD KASIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE driver and owner of taxi car KRT 7098 involved in an accident on 26.12.1979, as a result of which one of the passengers was injured, have filed this appeal challenging the award passed for Rs. 12,300/- against the appellants. The insurer is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- out of the amount awarded.

(2.) , Two contentions are urged before us on behalf of the appellants. First contention relates to the finding of the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. The case of the claimant is that the taxi car was driven at an excessive and uncontrollable speed and hit a stone and capsized. Claimant who was a passenger of the car sustained injuries, the separate counter statement filed by the driver and owner they denied any rashness or negligence in the driving and stated that the car capsized on account of unexpected reasons beyond the control of the driver. Counter statement did not however specify the reasons for the accident. Claimant examined as P. W. 1 spoke to his case. This was sought to be rebutted by the evidence of driver examined as R.W. 1. He staled that a lorry came in the opposite side without dimming lights and therefore he could not see the road, that he slowed down the car and swerved to his left side and the car hit a stone and capsized. Such a case was not put forward in hit counter-statement. Therefore we do not think any weight can be attached to his evidence. Reference is made to F.I. Statement said to have been given by the claimant where a more or less similar version was given. If the car Was slowed down and it was swerved to its left side, even if it hit a stone, we do not think the accident would have occurred in the manner, alleged. Obviously the F.I. Statement was given when the informant must have been in considerable pain on account of the injuries. We prefer his positive evidence in Court. That means the finding of the tribunal is justified. We have gone through the judgment of the tribunal awarding Rs. 12,300A as compensation and the various items under which compensation has been allowed. We find the compensation awarded is wholly reasonable. We do not find any reason to interfere. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.