NARAYAN HIRALAL PARDESHI Vs. EKNATH GHANASHYAM GALPHADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an Appeal filed by original Opponent Nos. 2 and 3, against the award made by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Pune in Application No. 214 of 1981.

(2.) THE Application was made by the parents, widow, minor child and the brother of one Lahu Eknath Galphade, a young man of about 25 years of age and according to the Applicants, he, whilst riding a cycle, was involved in an accident with a truck bearing registration No. BYW 2724 belonging to Opponent No. 2 and driven at the material time by Opponent No. 1 to the application. The said truck was insured with Opponent No. 3 and it may be presumed that both during the trial and in the Appeal it is really Opponent No. 3, the insurance company, who is fighting the litigation.

(3.) THE version as to how the accident occurred differs. According to the eye witness Rajaram, examined on behalf of the Applicants, the truck came from behind and struck the cycle at its rear with the result that the deceased Lahu suffered injuries as a result of which he expired. The version given by the three witnesses on behalf of the Opponents was totally different. However each one gave a different version than the other two. The Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pune, found the version given by Rajaram to be consistent with the damage to the cycle as recorded in the panchanama and rejected the testimony given by the three witnesses of the Opponents as having internal contradications and to that extent not worthy of acceptance. The internal contradictions are manifest and it appears to us that witness No. 3 has been got up and brought to Court to explain the contradictions between the versions given by the first two witnesses. According to the driver of the truck, at the relevant time, two cyclists came from the opposite side and dashed against one another with the result that one of the cyclists fell towards the truck driven by him. According to this driver he stopped the truck immediately He maintained that he had not given any dash to the cyclist at all. When we perused the pancbanama we found that the panchanama mentioned that the cyclist was lying between the two front wheels of ths truck. That this driver is not very reliable is also borne out by the fact that according to him the width of the road was 25 to 30 ft. at the relevant spot whereas according to the panchanama the road is 55 ft. wide at the spot with a divider in between. The driver, apart from his version of the accident which is not reliable, is obviously an interested witness as also an unreliable witness as already indicated.