SHYAMABAI Vs. P.C. DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg. The claim has been dismissed on the ground that they could not prove the rashness and negligence of the respondent No. 1 P.C. Das whom they allege to be the driver of the vehicle which is alleged to have struck to deceased Netram and caused his death.

(2.) IT appears that on 13-12-1979, at about 10.00 A.M., the deceased on a bicycle was proceeding on Utai-Durg road. When he was negotiating a culvert near a liraha on that road, it is said that Truck No. MPS 5002 allegedly driven by the respondent No. 1 stuck Netram as a consequence of which he died on the spot. The appellant No. 1 as his widow, appellants 2 to 4 as children and appellant No. 5 as his mother claimed compensation for the death of Netram arising out of use of Truck No. MPS 5002 by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 was impleaded as the owner and respondent No. 3 as insurer. The claim was denied and it was submitted by the respondent No. 1 that he was not the driver of Truck No. MPS 5002 at the relevant time nor was he permitted to drive it up to the date of incident. His contention was that he never drove that truck on 13-12-1979 nor did he cause the accident. Parties went to trial and evidence was adduced. On assessment of the evidence, the Tribunal found that it could not be shown that the truck was driven by the respondent No. 1 and that the truck dashed against the deceased Netram resulting in his death.

(3.) SHRI Khaskalam, however, urged that due opportunity was not given to the appellants to adduce evidence. Learned Counsel pointed out certain order-sheets of the Tribunal. On 8-5-1981, the appellants were given time to adduce evidence. The case was then posted for 26-6-1981. On that date also, the appellants did not have their entire evidence in Court. Although the appellants then were not entitled to any indulgence, yet in the interest of justice, the learned Tribunal permitted the appellants to examine Head Constable, H.C. Yuvraj, of P.S. Bhatti. It was specifically directed that the process- fee for summoning the witness be paid on that very day. The case was adjourned to 10/7/1981. The record shows that inspite of this indulgence shown, the appellants did not avail it. They made an application for issuance of process to Yuvraj Singh only on 2-7-1981. The process, therefore, could not be issued. We have also perused the application which was made on behalf of the appellants for permission to summon the witness. The application does not disclose the purpose for which the witness was to be examined. That being so, the Tribunal did not commit any mistake in not giving further opportunity to adduce evidence.