YOGENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the owner of the vehicle under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On account of death of Mohd. Aqram aged about 27 years, the widow, minor children and parents filed an application for compensation claiming Rs. 9,80,200/-before the Tribunal. Their case is that on 18.10.1990 at about 4.00 p.m. while the deceased was going towards the grove in village Daipura truck No. UPN 6970 dashed against him and as a result of the accident he succumbed to the injuries. Thus, they have lost the dependency and are entitled to compensation. Appellant contested the claim on the ground that there was no accident and truck was not in a working order as its steering had failed at about 2.00 p.m. on the same day for which the driver left the vehicle on the road. Since the vehicle was found on the road it is wrongly been implicated, which caused the accident.

(2.) After considering the evidence on record Tribunal has found that the vehicle caused the accident as a result of which Mohd. Aqram sustained fatal injuries. He found that accident was on account of negligence of the driver of the Vehicle. Coming to the question of compensation he determined dependency at Rs. 7,200/-per annum and thus, determined the just compensation to be Rs. 1,14,000/- which he directed to the appellant to pay with proportionate costs and future and pendente lite interest at the rate of 14 per cent per annum. In the ordering portion, however, Tribunal has stated that Rs. 1,14,000/- with proportionate costs along with future and pendente lite interest at the rate of 14 per cent per annum would be paid by the appellant. This is the grievance of the appellant. Mr. V.N. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that Tribunal is not correct in its finding that the vehicle caused the accident and the driver was negligent in driving the vehicle. In any case the quantum of compensation determined is much on the higher side.

(3.) Mr. Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, submitted that the findings relating to negligence of the driver are unassailable and the compensation awarded is too low and it should have been enhanced. Taking into consideration the fact that in case this appeal is admitted claimants would not be able to get their compensation as awarded which may be deferred by grant of stay, we suggested that the appeal may be disposed of at this stage and parties have agreed to the same. Driver of the vehicle is the base witness to speak about the case made out by the owners. He has not been examined in this case. Thus, an adverse inference would be drawn. In case the driver would have been examined he would have spoken the truth which would be adverse to the owner. On the said ground we accept the finding of the Tribunal that there was negligence of the driver of the vehicle which caused the accident resulting in the fatal injuries of Mohd. Aqram.