SAROJ BALA Vs. MAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants are the appellants before this Court. They claimed compensation on account of the death of Ramesh Chand who died in an accident on July 11,1990.

(2.) The learned Tribunal vide its award dated January 20, 1992, has rejected the claim filed by the claimants on the ground that no such evidence had been led by the claimants which could show that the driver of the offending vehicle was, in any manner, negligent. It has also been held by the learned Tribunal that the driver and owner of the vehicle were colluding with the claimants.

(3.) Mr. Pritam Saini, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/ appellants has vehemently argued that the entire evidence on the record has been completely misread by the Tribunal. It has further been argued by the learned counsel that an admission made by Karam Singh PW3 that Devinder Singh, RW2 would show that there was no collusion between the driver and the claimants. The learned Tribunal has also observed that driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box. According to learned counsel for the appellants, it was beyond the control of the claimants to examine him and if the driver had not appeared in the witness box then an adverse inference should have been drawn against him. Mr. Saini further argues that it would be in the interest of justice, in view of the latest law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 2001 ACJ 428 (Kaushnuma Begum and others Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others) to hold that the claimants were entitled for compensation.