SEEMA Vs. SAT PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeals are against the orders dismissing the claim petitions. Of the three cases, FAO No. 1677 of 1995 relates to death of a person, by name Bansi Lal, aged 26 years and the claimants were the widow, two minor children and parents. FAO No. 1675 of 1995 was a claim for injuries for minor Seema, aged 2 years, who had fracture in her leg. FAO No. 1676 of 1995 was a claim for injuries by a 27 years old woman, who had multiple injuries. The claimants had a common case that when they were travelling in an auto-rickshaw (three wheeler), owned by one Rakesh Kumar and driven by a person by name Pawan Kumar, who was a hirer of the vehicle, it dashed against a four wheeler coming on the opposite direction that was owned by one Raghbir Singh. The accident was spoken to by PW2-Balvinder Kaur, who was said to be travelling along with the daughter-Seema, who was injured and other family members and the accident took place when a four wheeler coming from the opposite side being driven rashly dashed against the three wheeler that capsized the three wheeler and caused extensive injuries to some and fatal injuries to some. Bansi Lal, who died, was the brother of PW2. PW2 gave evidence to the effect that treatment expenses, which, according to her, cost her about Rs. 25,000/-for herself and about Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- for the treatment of her daughter. The person, who was said to be the driver-Pawan Kumar, was also examined on the petitioner's side itself, who contended as PW6 that he had taken the vehicle on hire from Rakesh Kumar and at the relevant time when he was driving the three wheeler, the four wheeler coming from the opposite direction, dashed against the three wheeler and that the front type of other vehicle came oft" and dashed against a tree and remained immobilized at a distance of about 30 yards. The owner of the four wheeler denied the collision but merely contended that he was trying to avoid hitting a cow which was crossing and dashed against a tree and the vehicle stopped. The contention, therefore, was that there had been no collision at all with the four wheeler.

(2.) The Tribunal found that in a criminal case, the police investigation revealed that yet another person by name Raghbir Dass was named as the driver of the three wheeler. Evidently, it was a situation where the investigation could not really find who the driver of the three wheeler was. With an inconsistent evidence about the person, who was driving the three wheeler, the Tribunal held that the accident itself has not proved in the manner alleged and therefore proceeded to dismiss the petitions.

(3.) The approach of the Tribunal was wholly erroneous. The deceased and the claimants were travelling in a three wheeler and was admitted by all persons, who were contesting the case. The issue was whether there had been a collision with the four wheeler. The collision was spoken to by PW6-Pawan Kumar, left lingering doubt that was still possible, especially when police investigation revealed yet another person to be driving the three wheeler. The evidence of PW6 was that he dashed against the four wheeler and it was not believed. Even if the evidence of PW6 did not evoke confidence, the involvement of the three wheeler itself could not have been denied. The vehicle turned turtle and it had been seriously damaged. PW2-the claimant had given cogent evidence about the fact that she was travelling in the three wheeler. I have, therefore, no doubt in my mind that even if the collision with the four wheeler had not been established, the Tribunal ought to have found that whoever was driving the three wheeler was himself responsible and ought to have granted compensation against the driver/owner of the three wheeler.