SUNITA SHARMA Vs. JAGDISH SINGH PATHANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the judgment dated 24.12.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (Tribunal) dismissing the claim of the appellants, they are in appeal before this Court.

(2.) THE facts and events in this case reveal a tragic and unfortunate story. Balram Kumar Sharma, an employee of Salal Hydel Electrical Project, Jammu lost his mother on account of hospitalisation at Jammu. A jeep No. JKP-8604 belonging to the project was detailed on his request for taking the dead body of his mother from Jammu to Nelon in District Ludhiana on payment. Jagdish Singh Pathania was the driver of the said jeep. At Jammu, another Matador was hired wherein the dead body of the mother of Balram Kumar Sharma was put. Sarwan Kumar Chandail and Ashok Kumar Sharma, the two employees, were detailed to accompany Balram Kumar Sharma. All these three persons and Smt. Tripta wife of Balram Kumar Sharma sat in the jeep. At about 10.30 p.m. while the jeep was short of Bhogpur town, it met with an accident. On account of the impact, Smt Tripta, Sarwan Kumar Chandail and Ashok Kumar Sharma were thrown out of the jeep and fell on the road There they sustained injuries. They were first taken to the hospital at Bhogpur and from there they were transferred to C.M.C. Hospital at Ludhiana. Sarwan Kumar Chandail was declared brought in dead. Ashok Kumar Sharma expired on 13.1.1987. Smt. Tripta survived and lodged FIR of this accident on 9.1.1987. Two claim petitions were filed on account of the deaths of Sarwan Kumar Chandail and Ashok Kumar Sharma. These were taken together and dismissed leading to the filing of the present appeal.

(3.) THE main issue, which required adjudication, was to see the cause of accident. It may be noticed that the truck driver had fled from the place of accident and had not been traced thereafter. It was noticed by the Tribunal that the claimants have not examined even a single witness and the witnesses, who were examined, only referred to the locus of the claimants to prefer these claims. Tribunal had also noticed that as per the FIR recorded at the instance of Smt. Tripta, cause of accident was the truck hitting the jeep. The only difference in the version given in the FIR was that the truck had come from the opposite direction and had hit the jeep. However, in the written statement filed before the Tribunal, it had been pleaded that the truck had come from behind as was the version of the driver of the jeep Jagdish Singh Pathania. The claimants made attempt to show that the version of Smt. Tripta was wrong as she was an interested witness. In fact the claimants could have succeeded if the version of the eye witness like the driver of jeep and Smt. Tripta had come in support of their stand. The claimant had otherwise no one to give account of the accident. In the absence of any evidence in this regard and otherwise also it is difficult to accept that the occupants were thrown out of the jeep just like that, without there being any impact or accident. The version of the jeep driver that the deceased were thrown out of the jeep due to impact on account of truck hitting the jeep appears quite plausible and possible. The main submission of the claimants that the version put in by Smt. Tripta was wrong apparently has been advanced without any valid basis. Smt. Tripta had no reason to give any tainted or wrong version as she herself was a victim and had received injuries. She could have easily blamed the jeep driver if indeed he was at fault. Her first version was recorded immediately after the accident on 9.1.1987 in the FIR. There was hardly any time for her to think and give any madeup details. Otherwise also her statement is in the line with the deposition of jeep driver Jagdish Singh. It cannot thus be said that driver Jagdish Singh was at fault or was negligent in driving the jeep because of which this accident took place. Rather, it is quite apparent that the accident took place due to an impact of truck, which had come from behind and struck against the jeep. It is on record that there was a thick fog and as such it is quite possible that the truck driver had failed to notice the jeep resulting in the accident. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal in holding that Jagdish Singh was not at fault f for causing this accident or was not responsible for this accident, are supported by evidence on record and are reasonable and need no interference. These findings are accordingly upheld. It may be noticed that even if the claimants were to succeed against the truck driver, they were bound to seek support from the version given by the jeep driver and Smt. Tripta. Since the truck or its driver had bolted from place, nothing can now be done in the matter. This unfortunate accident would go 9 unpunished adding further to the miseries of the claimants. 1 am left with no option but to dismiss the appeal. Appeal as such is dismissed