MAHABIR PRASAD GOEL Vs. GURU SARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under S. 110-D Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kanpur, dated 31-3-76, dismissing the claim petition filed under S. 110-A, Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) SMT. Laxmi Goel a teacher in Junior High School boarded a Rickshaw along with her husband on 25th August 1969 at about 3. 40 P. M. in front of the State Bank of India, Phool Bagh, Kanpur. Both husband and wife proceeded on Birhana Road, a truck bearing registration No. USF 3275 was driven by Gyan Singh came from behind and dashed against the rickshaw as a result of which SMT. Laxmi Goel and her husband Mahabir Prasad fell down. SMT. Laxmi Goel received serious head injuries. She was rushed to the Hospital where she was declared dead. The truck and its driver both were detained on the spot by the police. Mahabir Prasad lodged the first information report at the police station. Mahabir Prasad and two daughters of SMT. Laxmi Goel joined together to file a claim petition under S. 110-A, Motor Vehicles Act, claiming Rs. 50,000/- as compensation from Guru Saran Singh, the owner of the truck, driver of the truck and also from the United India Fire and General Insurance Company, the insurer.

(3.) THE learned Judge has discarded the testimony of the eye-witnesses on imaginary grounds. His appreciation of evidence is perverse. We are constrained to say that the learned judge took pains to paint an imaginary picture to discard the testimony of eye-witnesses. THE learned Judge observed that the truck could not be driven in a rash and negligent manner as Birhana Road is a crowded locality. This presumption is wholly misconceived. All the eye-witnesses said that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and that it had not hooted its horn yet the learned Judge held that the truck was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner without there being any good ground for the same. When a fast vehicle specially a truck hits a rickshaw or other vehicle from behind as a result of which injuries are caused to the occupants of the rickshaw, a presumption would arise that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, although it is open to the driver of the truck to rebut the presumption by giving plausible explanation for the accident. As already noted, the driver was not produced as he was dead. THE best evidence which could be produced to explain the manner of accident was of the driver but the same was not available. THE respondents did not produce any other witnesses to support their contention. In the absence of any evidence produced on behalf of the respondents it was not open to the Tribunal to rely on the pleas raised in the written statement of the owner or in holding that the rickshaw must have dashed against the truck from its rear portion.