DHARAM PAL CHANDNA Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE identity of the offending truck emerges as the main point at issue in appeal here.

(2.) THE tyre of a camel cart, parked on the road side, was being replaced when a truck came and hit into it as a result of which three presons working there were killed, they being Jit Ram, Dhan Raj and Azad Singh. This happened on December 18. 1978, at about 8 P.M. on the Delhi Jaipur road, a few kilometers beyond Gurgaon. It was the case of the claimants that this accident had been been caused by the turck HRM-7801, driven by Sis Ram son of Khem Singh. The respondents, including the said Sis Ram, denied that any accident had been caused by the said truck.

(3.) THE finding regarding the identity of the offending truck and that the accident had been caused by its rash and negligent driving warrants no interference in appeal. The claimants examined three witnesses, who deposed to the accident. They being P.W. 2 Prabhu, P.W. 3 Siri Chand and P.W.4 Rattan Singh. All these witnesses came forth with a consistent account of the occurrence. It is true that being illiterate, none of them gave the number of the truck involved in the accident, but it is significant to note that the truck remained at the spot after causing the accident and was there when the police came. In this situation, there can be no doubt regarding the number of the offending truck. Further, they all deposed that after the accident, the truck driver gave them his matter here is that of R.W.2 Dharam Pal, the owner of owner of the truck HRM 7801. A reading of his evidence would show that there was no denial or doubt by him that the accident had been caused by this truck. He also deposed that Sis Ram was the driver of the truck on the day of the accident. He further deposed that he learnt of the accident 2-3 days after the accident and he then came to Gurgaon and took the truck on Sapurdari and also informed the Insurance Company of the accident. The mere denial of R.W.I Sis Ram that he was not the driver of the truck was rightly not relied upon by the Tribunal.