MAHA SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON February 7, 1983 Rohtas Singh deceased was going to Subhash Niwar Factory on a bicycle and his brother Raghbir Singh was sitting on the carrier. At about 7. 00 P. M. when they reached near Gurdawara on the G. T. Road Panipat, tractor bearing registration number HRV 636 driven by Balbir Singh owner came from the Samalkha side and was said to be driven rashly in a zig-zag manner. On seeing the tractor coming, Raghbir Singh got down from the bicycle and while he was telling his brother to get down, the tractor struck against the cycle as a result whereof Rohtas Singh fell down and the right rear wheel of the tractor crossed over his body as a result whereof he died at the spot. Raghbir Singh then lodged an F. I. R. No. 141 on the same day with the city police station, Panipat. Rohtas Singh deceased was about 18 years of age at the time of his death and was working as a labourer in Subhash Niwar Factory where he was drawing Rs. 400/- per month. The tractor was insured with the New India Assurance Company-respondent. Parents of the deceased along with his brothers and sisters who are said to be dependent upon him filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal. The claim petition was dismissed on March 1, 1985 and it is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) BALBIR Singh the driver and owner of the tractor contested the claim petition and while denying the allegations of the claimants took the stand that no accident had taken place with the tractor in question. The insurance company also denied the allegations made in the claim petition and stated that the tractor was not involved in any accident on February 7, 1983. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously urged that finding of the Tribunal on issues No. 1 and 2 is contrary to the evidence on record and that it has been amply proved that the tractor in question was involved in the accident and that same was being driven rashly and negligently in a zig-zag manner at the time when accident took place resulting in the death of the deceased. He has referred to the statement of Raghbir Singh-PW4. It is not disputed that Raghbir Singh was sitting on the carrier of the cycle at the time when accident took place and that he was on the spot. He also went and lodged an F. I. R. with the police station in which he not only gave the tractor number but also mentioned the name of the driver who was driving the same. It is clear from the statement of this witness as also from the medical evidence that the death of the deceased was caused by a road accident and that the tractor in question was involved in the accident. The statement of this witness has not been believed by the Tribunal on the ground that he had deposed before the criminal Court to the contrary stating that he could not identify the driver of the tractor. According to the Tribunal this witness had blown hot and cold in the same breath and made two contradictory statements-one before the Magistrate and the other before the Tribunal and could not, therefore, be believed. I have gone through the statement of PW4 and am of the view that by and large the version given by him before the Tribunal is correct supported as it is by the circumstances of the case including the fact that the FIR was lodged by this very witness without any delay and the name of the driver and the registration number of the vehicle were clearly mentioned therein. It is again clear from the evidence that tractor was being driven rashly and negligently in a zig-zag manner. Thus, not agreeing with the findings of the Tribunal I hold that the tractor owned by Balbir Singh was involved in the accident and that it was being driven rashly and negligently by him thereby causing the death of the deceased.