DURGA PRASAD Vs. PUSHPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. A claim petition was filed by the respondent claiming Rs. 60,000/- by way of compensation on account of the death of Baba Charan Das. It is alleged that on 6.2.1975 Baba Charan Das, at about 5.30 P.M. he was knocked down by tractor No. U.S.E. 2547 from behind as a result of which he received a number of injuries and ultimately died on 14.2.75. Baba Charan Das is said to have been engaged in business from which he was earning Rs. 2000/- per month. The claimants being his sons and daughters have claimed compensation/-. The claim petition was contested by the appellant and apart from some technical objections it was contended that Baba Charan Das was never knocked down by the tractor in question and in fact he fell down while walking with the aid of the stick and was hurt by his own stick which caused his death. It was also urged that the amount of compensation claimed was excessive.

(2.) THE claims tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place in the manner stated by the claimant and that he had been knocked down by the tractor in question. The tribunal also held that except for Smt. Pushpa one of the married daughters of the claimant no other claimant was dependent upon him and that she was entitled to Rs. 35,00/- only by way of compensation. These findings are being assailed before me.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the appellant I find no force in this appeal. Sri Rajendra Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has urged that the claimant had failed to prove that Baba Charan Das had died on being knocked down by the appellant's tractor. The claimant has examined one Chatur Lal-P.W. 2 who has a shop opposite to the place where the accident had taken place. Guru Bachan Singh, P.W. 3 is also a witness who was, coming to the place of accident. Bal Kishan P.W. 1 is one of the claimant himself who had called by Guru Bachan Singh immediately after the accident and had taken the injured to the hospital. In the written statement the injuries caused to Baba Charan Das were not disputed. It is the manner in which the injury was caused which is disputed. While according to the claimant he was struck down from behind by the tractor, the defence was that he fell down himself due to the old age and the stick with the help of which he was walking caused injury. After taking this specific case it appears that the appellant traced himself and in his evidence he tried to prove that there was a yellow coloured tractor which had struck down the deceased a little while earlier to the arrival of his tractor a number of persons had collected. As the appellant also had been watching the injured the yellow colour tractor slipped away and the appellant was roped in this incident. In the written statement no such plea had been taken and if it was a fact that the appellant was not near the place of accident and had arrived there just by chance soon after the accident had taken place this plea would have found place in the written statement. The claims tribunal had placed reliance in the statement of P.Ws. 2 & 3 who were eyewitnesses and I find nothing wrong in this. It is also difficult to believe that the old man would have been injured in the fall and received injuries in the process from the stick which he was carrying. In the circumstances, I cannot subscribe to the statement made by the appellant and hold that the findings of the claims tribunal are sound.