CHANDU LAL Vs. NIRMALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar. Which on a claim petition filed by the claimants had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,15,200/- as compensation on account of the death of Ram Kumar H.C. who died in road accident on 18.1.1981 at about 9.15 p.m. at Hisar. The liability to pay compensation was fastened on Chandu Lal and Raghbir Singh, owner and driver of tractor respectively. In the appeal, the challenge to the award is that the liability to pay compensation on the appellants has been wrongly fastened which is contrary to the oral as well as documentary evidence. The counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellants are not the owner and driver of the tractor bearing No. HRJ 6708 which is alleged to have knocked down the deceased. The counsel for the appellants further argued that since police personnel had died, the appellants had been wrongly named as owner and driver of the tractor and infact they are not the owner of the tractor in question.

(2.) THE Counsel for the respondents claimants has argued that it has been proved on record by the claimants that the deceased had died as a result of accident with tractor No. HRJ 6707. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the entire paper book and evidence brought on record. The only question which requires determination is whether the liability to pay compensation has been wrongly fastened on the appellants. Daya Nand (PW-7) is a witness to the accident in his statement has given the number of the tractor HRJ 6708 of Ford make. It is also in his evidence that the tractor driver did not take a round of the chowk and instead turned the tractor on wrong side in order to proceed towards Gangua and struck against a man who was coming on cycle. The tractor stopped for a while and then sped away towards Gangua on that road. The head light of the tractor was also broken and had fallen on the road. This witness was cross-examined at length, but the respondents (appellants) failed to falsify his statement. In the FIR Exhibit P E, the number of the tractor has been mentioned as HRJ 6708. In the photograhps which are marked as Exhibits P-1 and P-2, the cycle is in twisted condition and that some broken pieces of the light were also shown. There were sufficient factors to connect the tractor HRJ 6708 with the accident.

(3.) HOWEVER , Head Constable Hari Ram (PW 5) while taking the tractor into possession had mentioned that it bore registration No. HRJ 6708 of Ford make. In fact all the documents prepared by the police contain the number of the tractor in question as HRJ 6708. It is not understandable that when Chandu Lal had specifically stated in his application for Sapurdari that he is owner of tractor No. HRJ 6707 how and under what circumstances the police of Police Station City, Hissar, had released tractor No. HRJ 6708 on Sapurdari. The tractor impounded by the police was HRJ 6708 but the Moharrir Head Constable of P.S. City, Hissar, made a report on 20.1.1981 on the application for Sapurdari that the police had no objection to the release of tractor bearing No. HRJ 6707 on Sapurdari, when infact no tractor bearing No. HRJ 6707 was available or impounded by the police. It appears that after the accident appellant Chandu Lal manouvered to change the number plate from HRJ 6707 to HRJ 6708 with the connivance of the police, in order to escape his, liability though in fact he was owner of tractor No. HRJ 6707 with which the accident had taken place.