PREM LATA Vs. SIKANDAR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 8.12.1976 an accident occurred in which a scooter No. DHU 7357 was struck by one truck No. UPS 4224 in which the driver of the scooter, Milap Chand, received injuries and died thereafter. The claimants are the wife and minor children of the deceased Milap Chand. They preferred claim petition before the Claims Tribunal and claim case No. 5 of 1977 was registered. The allegation was that the said truck hit the scooter at about 7.30 p.m. while it was being driven rashly and negligently and at a high speed. It has also been alleged that the truck was moving on the wrong side of the road and its right hand side headlight was also off.

(2.) The owner and the insurance company contested the claim. They contended that it was the driver of the scooter who was driving it at a high speed, rashly and negligently and dashed the truck which was moving on the right side. Their case was that the driver of the scooter was negligent and not the driver of the truck. Evidence from both the sides was tendered along with some documents. The learned Tribunal Judge held that the truck was not being driven rashly and negligently and it was the deceased who was on the scooter became negligent and since he was responsible the learned Tribunal Judge dismissed the claim.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Tribunal Judge all the claimants preferred this appeal. It has been contended on behalf of the claimants that the learned Tribunal Judge was wrong in holding that the driver of the truck was not negligent and it was the driver of the scooter who was negligent. They have submitted that the learned Tribunal Judge has based his finding relying on the evidence of DW 1 and DW 3 (driver of the truck) and without any rhyme or reason discarded the evidence of the claimants' witnesses. It has also been submitted that the learned Tribunal Judge did not consider about the fact that right hand side headlight of the truck was not burning at the time of the accident. In this case, on behalf of the claimants nine witnesses have been tendered. Out of them PW 4 and PW 5 are the eyewitnesses. PW 4 has stated that the speed of the truck was quite fast at the time of the accident. It was being driven recklessly and negligently. Right hand side headlight of the truck was off and the said truck was coming on the wrong side of the road leaving only 3-4 steps on the right side of the road. PW 5 has also followed PW 4 and stated that right hand side headlight of the truck was not burning at the time of the accident. Both of them have claimed to be eyewitnesses of the occurrence. It appeal's that only negative suggestions were given to PW 4 and besides that, no cross-examination was done on the point whether the right hand side headlight of the truck was burning. The learned Tribunal Judge did not discuss this aspect of the matter and did not show any reason while discarding the evidence of PW 4 and PW 5 in this respect.