S GURBUX SINGH SAFIR Vs. S INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter called the Tribunal), dated March 25, 1983, whereby the claim application filed by the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant, aged 71 years, filed the claim petition on the allegations that on August 26, 1980, at about 11.30 A.M. He was coming on a bicycle from Amritsar Oil Works near Chheharata and was proceeding towards his shop in the Hall Bazar, Amritsar. He was going on the correct side of the road. Inder Singh, respondent who was driving truck No. PUF-5640 rashly and negligently struck it against him. He was dragged to a sufficient length. As a result, his thigh-bone was broken and he also received injuries on his shoulder and his right knee. According to him, he was earning Rs. 12,000/- per annum. He was operated upon by Dr. Rachhpal Singh. He also remained admitted to the hospital ward of Dr. Karam Singh. He had been under treatment from August 26, 1980 to some date in September, 1980 and spent about Rs. 10,000/- in that behalf. He was running an electrical shop in Hall Bazar and was an A-Class technician and consulting engineer. At the time of the accident, he had a contract for Rs. 12,000/- with the Punjab Textiles, a Government Undertaking, which was cancelled. He was expecting a profit of Rs. 8,000/- out of the said contract. According to him, on account of the accident, he had also suffered mental agony and pain. He was, therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of compensation. In the written statement filed on behalf of Inder Singh, driver, it was pleaded that Gurbax Singh Safir claimant, was coming from Chheharta. When he reached near the railway crossing, he suddenly turned his bicycle to save himself from a scooter. He lost control over his bicycle and fell down. There was no impact of the truck with him as it was on normal speed and he had blown horn. As such, he was not at all negligent or at fault. No criminal case was registered against him. The owner of the truck, Mohinder Singh, respondent, in his written statement pleaded that the accident had taken place due to the fault of Gurbax Singh Safir claimant, as he could not maintain his balance. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that from the statement of the claimant as A.W. 1, it was amply proved that truck No. PUF-5640 came from behind at a high speed without sounding any horn. It was being driven by Inder Singh, respondent. He was run down by the speeding truck. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the finding of the Tribunal in this behalf that the claimant did not plead in the application that the truck had come from behind and the evidence of the respondents clearly showed that it had come from Amritsar and not from Attari side, was not correct. Moreover, argued the learned counsel, in view of the Supreme Court decision in N.K. Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, 1980 AIR(SC) 1354culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes.