SANDHYA DEVI Vs. H.R.T.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by the claimants is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kullu, in Claim Petition No. 39/99, decided on 1.12.2001, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants has been dismissed.

(2.) THE claimants, who are the parents of deceased Jitender Sharma, filed a claim petition in which it was alleged that the deceased was a pillion rider on a scooter belonging to respondent No. 4 Krishan Gopal Thakur and being driven by his son Jitender Thakur. According to the claimants, there was collision between this scooter and an HRTC bus which was going from Kullu side towards Manali. They averred that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the driver of the bus as well as the driver of the scooter. As far as the owner and driver of the bus are concerned, their case was that no collision had taken place between the scooter and the bus. As far as respondents No. 4 and 5 are concerned, according to them, the scooter was being driven by the deceased himself and that respondent No. 5 was the pillion rider on the scooter. It was further stated that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus in question and that the scooter involved in the accident did belong to respondent No. 4. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the scooter involved in the accident belongs to respondent No, 4. He, however, held that the scooter was being driven by deceased Jitender Sharma and not by Jitender Thakur and came to the conclusion that the claimants had failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the bus driver and, therefore, dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) THE main question which arises is as to who was driving the scooter at the time of the accident. PW 1 HC Khem Chand has proved FIR No. 255/98 recorded in this case. Certified copy of this FIR is Ex. PW l/A. A perusal of this FIR shows that the same was recorded at the instance of Jitender Kumar son of Krishan Kumar i.e. respondent No. 5. In this FIR, it is mentioned that he alongwith deceased Jitender Sharma had gone to Haripur to watch a cricket match and thereafter were returning on his scooter. There was sand on the road and the scooter skidded and slipped. One HRTC bus came from the opposite side, however, the bus did not hit them and they had suffered the injuries even before the bus reached them. PW 2 Anil Sethi has proved the fact that respondent No. 4 had purchased a scooter on 15.9.1998 from the Firm where he works. PW 4 is the mother of the deceased. She was not at the spot when the accident occurred. According to her, the deceased used to earn Rs. 4,000/ to Rs. 5,000/ per month during the season by. doing pruning work. She admits that in her house also there is one scooter and this scooter is driven by her younger son Bhupinder Sharma. She states that though deceased Jitender Sharma had a driving licence, he never used to drive a scooter.