AVTAR KAUR Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are two appeals brought at the instance of the claimants for death of two persons who died in an accident involving the insured's vehicle. The contention of the claimants was that they were travelling in the truck PB -12A 2321 belonging to the 1st respondent as workman and they died when the vehicle fell into a river by the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The claimants would, therefore, contend that since the death occurred on account of the negligent driving of the 1st respondent's driver, they should be compensated under the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) THE contention in defence was that they were not travelling in the vehicle but the vehicle had fallen into a river near Pabhat on 01.08.1998 at about 2.30 pm. An attempt was made to pull the truck with the help of a crane and the deceased persons were actually employed to pull the motor vehicle out of the river. At that time they fell into water and they died. The accident, therefore, according to the respondent did not take place in the manner referred to by the claimants. The statement in defence was accepted and the Tribunal, therefore, held that the claimants' contention was not true and dismissed the petitions.

(3.) I have examined the records with reference to the postmortem report to know when actually the death had taken place. If the vehicle had fallen into a river on 01.08.1998 even when the bodies had been retrieved later, the postmortem must have indicated the time as about the same time when the vehicle fell into the river if the deceased had travelled in the vehicle. One body appears to have been retrieved on 03.08.1998 and yet another body was taken out about 10 days later. The body which had been brought by the police for postmortem on 03.08.1998 was returned with report that the death must have taken place within 24 hours. This only synchronizes with the time when he could have been employed the following day and he had fallen at the time of retrieval of the truck. If he died even on 01.08.1998 then the report would have stated that the death had taken place more than 3 days earlier and the doctor's report itself would have shown that death had taken place more than 3 days earlier. The fact that the postmortem certificate indicates that the death had taken place within 24 hours would only show that death must have occurred only in the manner referred to by the respondents.