BHATERI Vs. SAMPURAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter called the Tribunal), dated May 26, 1983, whereby a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in all, has been awarded to the claimants on account of the death of Dharam Singh, aged 24 years, in the accident on April 8, 1982. Cross-objections have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, the owner of the offending truck, challenging the findings of the Tribunal on the question of rashness and negligence.

(2.) Dharam Singh, deceased, along with Surat Singh and Man Singh, was coming towards Karnal from the Intensive Cattle Development Programme Karnal, on a bicycle on April 8, 1982, at about 4.30 p.m. When he reached near the gate of District Courts Karnal, the truck bearing No. HRD-9295 coming from the Ambala side being driven by Sampuran Singh, respondent, hit him. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the said truck by Sampuran Singh, respondent, he received injuries resulting into his death. The claim petition was filed by his widow and his parents. In the written statement it was stated that the claimants had no locus standi to file the petition. The allegations contained in the claim petition were denied. It was averred that the truck, in question, was being driven at a low speed and was on its left side. When the truck reached near the gate of the District Courts on the G.T. Road, the cyclist suddenly emerged from the Court gate and without caring for the traffic rules, took a turn and in the process the paddle of his bicycle struck the back wheel of the truck. The cyclist got panicky, jumped from the bicycle and fell down and struck the pavement: hence the death was caused due to the act and fault of the cyclist. In the replication, the claimants controverted the said allegations in the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :-

(3.) So far as the findings of the Tribunal on the question of rash and negligent driving of the truck by Sampuran Singh, respondent, challenged in the cross-objections are concerned, I do not find any merit therein. The learned Tribunal after discussing the entire evidence in detail returned the said findings. It is surprising that the driver of the truck, Sampuran Singh, respondent, did not appear in the witness box to rebut the averments of the claimant. A presumption, therefore, was drawn against him that if he had appeared in the witness-box, he could not have belied the statement of Man Singh, AW4. Thus, it has been rightly held by the learned Tribunal, -