DEVI PRASAD YADAV Vs. BHAIYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/Claimant Devi Prasad Yadav filed a petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Seoni under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act Claiming compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- as damages for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 24.12.1983 by Jeep CPZ 1871 driven by respondent No. 1 Bhaiyaram and owned by respondent No. 3 State of M.P.

(2.) THE Claims Tribunal assessed the damages at Rs. 31,500/-. However, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the appellant failed to prove that the injuries were sustained on account of the accident by Jeep No. CPZ 1871 driven by respondent No. I Bhiayaram and owned by respondent No. 3 the State. The aforesaid finding was arrived by the Tribunal on the ground that the First Information Report made by Devi Prasad (A.W. 1) does not contain the name of the driver or the number of the vehicle, although it is stated by Devi Prasad in his statement in Court that he knew Bhaiyaram from before. The Claims Tribunal has also taken the view that Girish Kumar Shrivastava (A.W.3) must have come to know about the number of the jeep from sowm other source and he has not seen the incident nor recognised the driver and, therefore, he is not a reliable witness. However, the Claims Tribunal has relied on the diary maintained by Rampal Ssingh (N.A.W. 1) wherein it has been shown that the jeep was in his control on the relevant date, i.e. on 24.12.1983 when he was on tour.

(3.) ANOTHER witness examined Girish Kumar (A.W. 3) has stated that he saw the accident and he was on the spot; when he rushed to the spot of the accident, he saw Bhaiyaram was driver of the vehicle; he has noted down the number of jeep on his palm and when the police recorded his statement he gave the number of the Jeep. The statement of Girish Kumar (A.W.3) recorded by the police is proved by Head Constable, Sewaram (N.A.W. 2). Bhaiyaram, in order to avoid the responsibility of driving the vehicle at the relevant time has stated before the Court that from 11.00 a.m. to 3.40 p.m. on the relevant date, i.e. 24.12.1983 the jeep was standing at the house of the Commandant, (N.A.W. 1) whereas the statement of Rampal Singh is to the effect that the jeep was standing from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. at his residence on 24.12.1983.He has not stated anything about handing over of the key to him by Bhaiyaram. Thus, these witnesses cannot be relied on for proving the fact that the jeep was standing from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. and was not in use.