MAN KAURI Vs. SAT PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE identity of the offending truck emreges as the Main point for consideration in the appeal here.

(2.) ACCORDING to the claimants (Om Parkash deceased was proceeding towards his house in Shakti Nagar, Hissar and when he reached near Malik Hospital, the driver of his rikshaw suddenly took it on to the kachcha portion of the road on seeing the truck HRJ-5595 coming from the opposite direction at a fast and reckless speed. In the process Om Parkash fell off the rikshaw on account of a bump received by him. It was when he fell that he is said to have been run over by this truck. The respondents, however, denied the involvement of this truck in any such accident. The Tribunal negatived the claim for compensation put-forth by the widow and children of Om Parkash deceased holding that they had failed to prove that this accident had been caused by the truck HRJ 5595. It is this finding that was sought to be challenged in appeal.

(3.) SIMILARLY , the testimony of PW 6 Raghbir Singh was also rightly not relied upon. He too emerged as a witness only a day after the accident. According to him he happened to go to the place of accident the next day at about mid-day when he found the police there and then he got his statement recorded. In his case too if indeed he had seen the occurrence and noted the number of the truck, the report by Tej Bhan to the police would not have omitted to contain the truck number.