MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE JULLUNDUR Vs. JAGDISH KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of F. A. O. No. 24 of 1973 (Municipal Committee, Jullundur v. Smt. Jagdish Kaur), F. A. O. No. 43 of 1973 (Municipal Committee, Jullundur v. Harnam Kaur), and F. A. O. No. 70 of 1973 (Jagdish Kaur v. Bachan and Municipal Committee, Jullundur), as all the three appeals arise out of the same judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jullundur, (hereinafter called the Tribunal), dated Aug. 22, 1972.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that on Dec. 21, 1967, at about 1 P. M. one Swaran Singh Aujla, a young man of 22 years, resident of village Kala Sanghian, was going on a scooter on Jullundur--Kapurthala Road in Jullundur near the secretariat building when a truck No. PNU--7532 (hereinafter called the truck) owned by the respondent Municipal Committee, and driven by Bachan, respondent, who was in the employment of the Committee, collided against the said scooter resulting in the instanteneous death of Swaran Singh. Two claim petitions under S. 110--A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) were filed, one by Jagdish Kaur, widow of the deceased, and the other by Harnam Kaur, widowed mother of the deceased, claiming Rs. 2 lakhs each as compensation on the plea that the fatal accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by Bachan, respondent. Compensation was claimed against both the driver and the Municipal Committee, the owner of the truck. Both the applications were consolidated by the Tribunal vide its order dated April 24, 1968. The claim petitions were contested by both the driver and the owner of the truck. It was alleged that they had no knowledge about the accident and, in the alternative, it was contended that the compensation claimed was highly exaggerated. Ownership of the truck was admitted. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(3.) FINDING on issue No. 2, was challenged, but half--heartedly. The version regarding the tragic accident has been proved by the two eye--witnesses, Ram Saran, A. W. 2 and Mehnga Ram, A. W. 3. Ram Saran, A. W. 2, runs a tea stall opposite the building of the civil secretariat near the place of occurrence. It was on the basis of his statement that the first information report, Exhibit A. W. 5/1 was recorded against Bachan, driver, the respondent. His presence at the time of the occurrence was even supported by Saran Dass. R. W. 4, Mehnga Ram, A. W. 3, is a clerk of Shri Vasudev Mehta, Advocate, who was working in the civil secretariat. As the accident took place in the vicinity of the civil secretariat, the presence of this witness was quite natural. His statement was also recorded by the police during investigation of the case. Nor was his presence challenged in cross--examination. Both these witnesses categorically stated that the occurrence took place when the scooter driven by Swaran Singh Aujla, deceased, was going on his proper side and the truck being driven by Bachan, respondent, was going at a fast speed on the wrong side and struck against the scooter. It was also pointed out that at the time, the driver of the truck did not sound the horn. The scooter was, according to the witnesses, being driven at a normal speed on the proper side of the road. Both the respondent Municipal Committee and Bachan, respondent, in their written statements vaguely denied the knowledge of the occurrence and did not take up any alternative plea. An attempt was made to make out a case in the evidence of their witnesses, Bra Ram, R. W. 3 and Saran Dass, R. W. 4, that the scooter was following the truck and the deceased driving the scooter attempted to overtake the truck and it was in that process that the occurrence took place due to the negligence of the deceased. This plea was clearly an after--thought as the same was not adverted to in their written statements. Nor any of the two eye--witnesses produced on behalf of the claimants was confronted with the same. None of the witnesses produced on behalf of the respondent Municipal Committee and bachan, driver, can be given any credence as they were only chance witnesses. Their statements were not even recorded by the Policy during investigation which fact is quite alone eloquent to throw doubt on the factum of their presence at the time and place of occurrence. Baru Ram, R. W. 3, is admittedly the driver under the employment of the Municipal Committee, the owner of the truck. Obviously, he was under the influence of the Committee. According to Saran Dass, R. W. 4 he had gone at the relevant time to supply food to his father Mahesha Ram who is stated to be working as a cobbler near the place of occurrence. Strangely, this Mahesha Ram was not produced in evidence. The said Saran Dass in cross--examination admitted to be employed in Gopal Trading Pharmacy, at a distance of about one mile from the place of accident. In these circumstances, he cannot be expected to be off duty for such a considerable time that he could leave the factory, come to his house and take the food at such a long distance to his father. Madan Mohan, R. W. 6, who also claimed to be an eye--witness was a clerk of an Advocate, was not expected to be at the place of occurrence at the relevant time because the said Advocate was not stated to be working in the civil secretariat. It was admitted that his statement had also not been recorded by the Sub--Inspector during investigation. All these witnesses went out of the way to support the version which was, as stated above, only an afterthought indicating the deceased following the truck, on a scooter. The learned Tribunal has discussed the entire evidence regarding the occurrence exhaustively in the judgment under appeal and came to a clear finding that at the time of the occurrence, the truck driven by Bachan, respondent, was going at a fast speed on Jullundur--Kapurthala Road and was on the wrong side when the fatal accident took place and further that the deceased was coming on the scooter from the opposite direction and was coming at a normal speed on his proper side. It was also concluded that the occurrence was the result of rash and negligent driving of the truck by Bachan, respondent. These conclusions are based on correct assessment of the evidence and I entirely agree with the reasoning and the conclusions arrived at. The learned counsel for the appellant Municipal Committee also appeared to be conscious of the correctness of the conclusions of the Tribunal in respect of this issue and was not in a position to challenge the same with any force.