RAMWATI Vs. RAJVEER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the claimants challenging award dated 30.7.1997 passed by the Fifth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Case No. 48/91, whereby the claim petition filed by the present appellants for death of Vidhyaram, who was aged between 45 to 50 years old.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Vidhyaram was travelling on a scooter bearing No. DIH 8072 along with one Babu Ram. When they reached near Lashkar, Gwalior, the scooter driven by Ram Prakash dashed against a tractor bearing No. MIH 06926, which has resulted into death of deceased Vidhyaram. The claimants, who are the wife and five children of the deceased have filed claim petition. The Claims Tribunal after recording evidence found that the accident in question is not found proved, as claimants have not examined any eye-witnesses. The witnesses examined by the claimants i.e., RW. 1 Ramwati wife of the deceased and RW. 2 Kedar Singh are not the eye-witnesses of the accident, therefore, accident is not proved. The Tribunal has also observed that though the claimants have filed a copy of FIR, but the FIR is not proved by the examining person who lodged the FIR nor by examining the Police Officer, who has recorded the FIR and therefore, dismissed the claim petition.

(3.) THE contention of learned Counsel for the respondents is that as the appellants have failed to prove the negligence of the driver, appellants are not entitled to any compensation for this purpose, learned Counsel for the respondents has relied on judgment in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. Lakshmi Rani Pal and Ors. 1977 ACJ 395 but that was the case of suicide. In the present case, defendant has raised a plea that accident has occurred due to negligence of the deceased, but from the evidence it has come on record that deceased was pillion rider. In such circumstances, question of his negligence does not arise. Moreover, it is for the respondent in the present case to prove negligence, as once the accident is admitted the principle of res ipsa loquitur will come into play and the onus of proving negligence will shift on the respondents and in the present case respondent has not led any evidence to prove the negligence of the deceased.