RAM KUMAR Vs. DRIVER RAMESH @ DHIRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for claiming compensation. The petitioner's case was that the vehicle that belonged to the 2nd respondent and driven by the 1st respondent dashed against him while he was standing in the side of the road and it resulted in various serious injuries requiring hospitalization for a month and three days. The doctor, who had examined him gave evidence to the effect that he had fractures in four places and the fractures were reduced by open surgical interventions. The Tribunal held that there was very serious contradiction in setting out the name of the person as having driven the vehicle, which name actually was of a 8 years old younger brother of the 1st respondent Ramesh. There was also contradiction in his evidence regarding which part of the tractor hit him whether it was the front part of the tractor or the trailer attached to the tractor. The 2nd respondent attempted to prove that he had purchased the vehicle only on 27.06.1991 and he was not even the owner of the vehicle on 14.06.1991. The Tribunal referred to all these incidents as not establishing the involvement of the respondent's vehicle and dismissed the petition.

(2.) The Tribunal, however, had assessed the compensation payable at Rs. 70,000.00 by quantifying Rs. 30,000.00 for the disability caused to him, Rs. 30,000.00 towards the loss of his earning and Rs. 10,000.00 for hospital expenses and for future expenses. It is against this award that the appeal has been filed.

(3.) As regards the contention that the vehicle was not involved in the accident at all, the said inference will not be possible without examining entire evidence that was let in before the Tribunal. It must be borne in mind that the petitioner had stated that he was himself taken to the hospital by respondent No.1 and 2 and the statement by the police itself had been recorded at the hospital where he was taking treatment. He had surely referred to the manufacturer of the tractor as Eicher and he had also given specific evidence relating to the place and time of accident. With specific details given about the accident as regards the identity of the vehicle and the person, who brought him to the hospital one would expect that the respondents would deny the fact that they admitted him in the hospital or they admitted him in the hospital out of sure compassion and they had no relation whatsoever to the accident itself. All that was shown at the trial was an attempt on the part of the respondent in saying that they purchased the tractor itself on 27.06.1991. Learned counsel for the respondents wants draw an inference that when the respondent purchased the tractor subsequent to the accident, there was no question of his vehicle being involved earlier in point of time. It is just as well likely that the registration came about later or he had been able to manipulate the date of purchase to the date which was comfortable to him. At the summary proceeding before the Tribunal when the claimant was making a reference about the involvement of tractor and was also giving the details of the accident, the respondents were required to squarely give evidence in positive assertion of the fact that his vehicle was not involved and mere statement that he had purchased the vehicle later is merely an evasive answer and that it cannot conclude the issue. Again the attempt here on behalf of the respondents that if he had taken the appellant to the hospital out of compassion, it cannot mean that his vehicle was also involved in the accident, must be examined only in the context of what the party himself had chosen to say. I have gone through the evidence of RW1. He does not say anywhere that he had taken the appellant to the hospital mere out of compassion. This is more an explanation by the counsel than the party himself. Even a contradiction that the complainant had made a reference to 8 years old boy, who was the brother of the 1st respondent and was driving the tractor cannot go to detract from the fundamental fact in issue of the involvement of the respondent's vehicle. From the evidence given by the parties, I am of the view that the respondent was trying to suppress the fact and give out tissues of lies in Court. The Tribunal ought to have seen through the game and must have found the respondent Nos.1 and 2 as responsible for the accident. It ought not to have made an issue about the fact that the injured victim was not able to recall correctly which part of the vehicle hit against him. A person in trauma, who had given a statement before the police when he was still in the hospital if he fails to recall that it was front portion or the trailer portion, it ought not to result in doubting the occurrence of accident itself. I vacate the finding that the respondent's vehicle was not involved in the accident and hold respondent Nos.1 and 2 were responsible for the accident.