ROSAMMAL Vs. ASHOK KUMAR SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NEGLIGENCE is an aspect which has to be decided by the facts and circumstances that are available on record, both oral and documentary by the Tribunal. Whatever may be the case of the claimants or the respondents or the owners of the vehicle or the companies which own the vehicle that is alleged to have committed rashness and negligence resulting in the accident, it is for the Tribunal to decide as to who was responsible for the accident In other words, the element of rashness and negligence has to be gathered by scrutinising the evidence available on record and carefully analysing the same so as to come to a proper decision, and if so to what percentage the victim as well as the driver of the vehicle have contributed to the accident. Though it is a summary procedure contemplated bv the Rules so far as the Tribunal is concerned while dealing with the claim it is but necessary that the elementary principle of law, namely, the Indian Evidence Act has to be followed. Bearirig this principle in mind, the Tribunal has to take up the case, record evidence and discuss the evidence on the points framed by it and come to a definite conclusion both with respect to rashness and negligence of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and/or the injured/deceased as a result of the accident as well as the quantum of compensation that has to be determined together with the points of law raised by either side during the course of trial before the Tribunal.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has, inter alia, contended that it is for the court to come to the conclusion as to which vehicle was at fault especially when there is head-on collision and especially when the deceased had suffered injuries as a result of the accident to which he succumbed and for which the appellants have claimed compensation. It is also the arievance of the learned Counsel for the appellants that though a sum of Rs 30 000/- has been asked for as compensation by the appellants, yet the Tribunal had fixed the compensation only at Rs. 15,800/- without considerating the evidence in proper perspective. In other words, according to the learned Counsel, the amount of compensation asked for should have been awarded by the Tribunal.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants submits that it is not for the claimants/appellants to prove which lorry was at fault at the time of the collision between both the vehicles-whether it was the lorry for the employer of the deceased or the other one. It is for the court to come to a proper conclusion with the evidence available on record as to which vehicle was at fault and to observe that no adequate material had been enlaced before it is not a sufficient ground to reject the claim of the appellants which has been legally made and especially when whatever that are available with the appellants had been submitted by the parties before the Tribunal. In other words, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants adequate materials have been placed before the Tribunal for coming to a determination as to which lorry was at fault.