HALIMABAI Vs. RAKESH KUMAR MUKHASIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, nagpur, dated 21. 9. 1992 in Claim Petition no. 53 of 1987. The accident, out of which the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal arose, took place on 28. 9. 1986 at 9. 30 a. m. on the Nagpur-Chindwara Road, near Mankapur within the jurisdiction of the Police Station Sadar. The deceased abdul Jabbar who was 50 years of age, was travelling as a pillion rider on scooter bearing registration No. MHG 2295 belonging to one Abdul Habib. Abdul Habib was driving the scooter. A truck bearing registration No. CPQ 6450, belonging to respondent No. 1 came from behind, that is, from the Nagpur side. The truck was driven by one Pralhad Mishra. The truck dashed against the scooter. The scooter was dragged over a length of the road. It is alleged that the deceased got entangled with the front wheel and sustained crush injuries. There was cyclist riding a bicycle on the road, a little ahead of the point of impact. The cyclist was a young lad, Abdul rashid aged 11 years. The deceased Abdul jabbar died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. The truck driver did not halt the truck at the scene of accident, but sped away. The truck was ultimately apprehended by the local populace, at a certain distance away from the scene of accident. The driver was apprehended. Both the driver of the scooter and the cyclist survived.

(2.) BEFORE the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal the claim originally filed was in the total amount of Rs. 2,00,000. By an amendment the claim was sought to be enhanced to Rs. 4,50,000. The claimants before the Claims Tribunal were the widow of the deceased and 11 children, who are respectively the claimant Nos. 2 to 11. The claimant No. 2, Abdul Wahab, who was the eldest son, aged 23 years, expired during the pendency of the proceedings and his legal representatives were brought on record. On behalf of the claimants, Abdul wahab has deposed in support of the case. Apart from his evidence, the claimants adduced the evidence of three other witnesses, that evidence being principally on the question of income which was earned by the deceased.

(3.) THE Tribunal in its judgment dated 21. 9. 1992 came to the conclusion that the claimants had failed to prove that the accident had been caused due to negligence of the truck driver. This was on the basis that pw 1 Abdul Wahab, who deposed was not an eyewitness to the accident. The Tribunal noted that the cyclist as well as scooter driver had not been examined. Before the tribunal, reliance was sought to be placed on the F. I. R. and upon the judgment of the supreme Court in Pushpabai Purshottam udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing co. , 1977 ACJ 343 (SC), in support of the plea that where the facts and circumstances spoke for themselves, the principle of res ipsa loquitur should apply. That contention was turned down by the Tribunal. Besides, the Tribunal has concluded in finding that the claimants had failed to establish their case in regard to the income of the deceased. In the circumstances, the application for compensation has been dismissed.