KIRPAL KAUR Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will also dispose of F. A.O. No. 386 of 1983, as both those appeals have arisen out of the same award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jullundur, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dated March 4, 1982.

(2.) IN the accident which took place on October 12, 1978, at 8.15 A.M. Thaman Singh aged about 54 years died. He was employed as an Upper Division Clerk in 223 ABO Depot at Suranasi (Jullundur) and drawing Rs. 837/- per month as his salary. The claim petition was filed by his widow Kirpal Kaur, appellant, and his mother Gian Kaur. According to them, the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No. MRL-3229, driven by Surinder Singh alias Salvinder Singh as he could not control the said truck which struck against the scooter of the deceased who was going after getting the petrol from Bawa and Company Petrol Pump and had stopped the scooter on the Kutcha portion of the road as soon as he saw the respondent driving at a fast speed and not in full control of the truck. Inspite of this, the truck struck against the scooter. As a result, Thaman Singh fell down and sustained injuries while Sulakhan Singh who was sitting on the pillion of the scooter had a narrow escape. The accident witnessed by Sulakhan Singh and Gulab Singh. The claim was contested on the plea that no accident had taken place as alleged by the claimants. The insurance company pleaded that its statutory liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I find that it has been wrongly held by the Tribunal that the deceased was at fault to the extent of 3/4, while the truck driver was only to the extent of 1/4. Admittedly neither the truck driver, nor anybody also was produced in evidence in rebuttal on behalf of the respondents. Gulab Singh, who was an eye-witness appeared as AW 4, who categorically stated that the deceased had stopped his scooter on the kutcha berm of the metalled road on seeing the truck coming from Kartarpur side towards Jullundur. The truck was being driven at a high speed. This part of his statement was never challenged in his cross-examination. Even from the photograph produced on the record by the claimants, Exhibit A. 4, it is clear that the scooter was on the Kufcha berm of the road and never came on the road, as found by the Tribunal. In the absence of any rebuttal; particularly the non-production of the truck driver, it is clear that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the respondent. The approach of the Tribunal was, thus, wholly wrong and illegal. The accident in which the victim Thaman Singh died, had taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by Surinder Singh, respondent.