RAJBALA AND ORS. Vs. JHAMMAN LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is against the dismissal of the petition seeking for compensation for death of a male resulting from a motor accident. It was a case of collision of a mini truck which the deceased was driving dashing against a stationary truck ahead of the deceased truck. At the trial evidence is given by an alleged eye witness who claimed that he was coming in a tractor from the opposite direction and he had noticed the truck coming from the behind from the alleged offending truck and before the vehicles could cross he heard a noise that turned out to be a collision at the rear side of the alleged offending truck. The eye witness would state that the accident had taken place only by virtue of the fact that the alleged offending truck had been parked at the middle of the road. In the cross -examination the witness had admitted that he had not given any complaint to the police nor was he in a position to state who was the person driving the truck. I find that the Conductor of the alleged offending vehicle had himself given a complaint and stated that one tyre of the truck had punctured and the vehicle had, therefore,, been stationed at the end of the road with one side of the vehicle being parked on the kutcha portion of the road. He also stated that there had been sufficient parking lights made and therefore, there was no negligence which could be attributed.

(2.) THE Tribunal had assessed the evidence of the alleged eye witness and observed that he was merely a chance witness and that his evidence cannot be relied on. If there had been parking lights a vehicle coming from the opposite direction could not have known whether the offending truck had parking lights on or not. He could have only noticed the headlights of the truck which had been stationed in the opposite direction. Further I suspect the correctness of the version of the alleged eye witness because if the vehicle had been parked at the middle of the road, there was no way that he could have known yet another vehicle coming behind of the alleged offending vehicle. It should have been possible only if road had a curve and the vehicles were not lined up in a straight line. There was no such evidence to that effect. The Tribunal on consideration of all the relevant factors has come to the conclusion that the negligence of the alleged reckless parking of the driver and the alleged offending truck had not been established. I have no reason to modify the finding and maintain the same.