RAJBIR SINGH Vs. HARJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is against the dismissal of petition for compensation for death of first claimant's wife. As per the version of the claimant, she was said to be washing clothes by the side of a compound wall within her house and the vehicle owned by the first respondent dashed against the wall that resulted in falling of the wall and the woman getting crushed under the debris and getting killed in the process. THE petition had been filed beyond a period of 1 year from the date of death. THE Tribunal found that the accident has not been shown to be resultant to either the dashing of the vehicle on the wall or the wall falling on the deceased to crush her to death. A police compliant had been lodged immediately following the accident on 22.8.1989 at 12.20 p.m. THE owner-driver had, however, denied that he had caused any collision with the wall and that there had been a death of a woman coming under the debris. AW3 was the only person who had spoke about the accident and his evidence was to this effect ?I noticed one wall having been demolished on account of collision by the jeep. I noticed woman lying under the wall. Nobody was there in the jeep at that time. I do not know who was driving the jeep.? In the cross-examination it was elicited that his house was at a distance of about ? furlong from the place where the wall had fallen. He also stated that he had noticed the jeep standing and the wall having fallen at that place. This evidence is relied by the counsel for the appellant as proving the involvement of the vehicle and the death of first claimant's wife as a result of such accident.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 would state that the evidence of AW3 hardly supports the plea that accident was caused only by the driving of first respondent-driver. He would also point out that he was no eye witness to the accident and his version could only be seen to infer that he had seen a jeep near the wall. He had also seen a dead woman by the wall. A certain amount of stretching of evidence would be necessary and I am prepared to do that for the case of the appellant and find that the accident must have taken place only by dashing of jeep against the wall and crushing the woman to death under the debris of the wall.

(3.) THE issue of limitation has become academic in view of the change in law removing the provision for limitation in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhanna Lal vs. D.P. Vijayvargiya, 1996(3) PLR 656. THE appeal is allowed to the above extent.