KRISHAN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. WARYAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid four appeals are being disposed of by a common judgement since they arise out of one accident. The claimants Waryam Singh and Raj Kumar filed two separate claim petitions. The allegations made in these claim petitions were that on 14th June, 2000 they were engaged as labourers and were travelling in truck No. HP -20 -0199 as labourers. This truck met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, Surinder Kumar, alleged to be the driver of the truck. The truck was owned by Krishan Kumar Sharma. The driver contested the claim petitions. He took up two pleas. His first plea was that in fact he was not the driver of the truck on the day when the accident occurred. According to him, he had already left the job of respondent No. 2 and had joined service at Kumarsain or at Shimla. He also simultaneously took up the plea that he had been instructed by the owner not to ply the vehicle till all documentation was completed. Respondent No. 2 on the other hand took the plea that no accident had taken place. He also pleaded that he had been informed by respondent No. 1 that some accident had taken place. According to him, it was the respondent No. 1 who was the driver of the truck and he also averred that he had directed the driver not to ply the vehicle unless it is got passed from the competent authority. According to the owner, the truck was lying with the respondent No. 1 at village Baruhi for more than one month prior to the accident and had not been deployed for carrying any goods. The owner also placed on record an Insurance Policy. The Insurance Company took various pleas including the plea that the policy of insurance had already expired on 13th June, 2000 and as on 14th June, 2000, the date on which the accident took place the truck was not covered by any policy of the Insurance. The learned tribunal framed a number of issues. Both the claim petitions were disposed of by a common judgement. It was held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. The owner was held liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance Company was exonerated from paying the compensation as on the date of the accident there was no valid policy of Insurance. The learned tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,20,728/ - in favour of the petitioner Waryam Singh and Rs. 1,34,777/ - in favour of petitioner Raj Kumar. The claimants were also held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date(s) of filing of the claim petitions till realization of the whole amount.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this award dated 10th June, 2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, the claimants have filed two appeals being FAO No. 407 of 2006 and 408 of 2006 for enhancement of compensation. The owner has filed two appeals being FAO No. 363 of 2005 and 364 of 2005 challenging the award.

(3.) AS far as the accident is concerned, the evidence led by the claimants clearly proves that the accident had taken place. The F.I.R. in respect of the accident was lodged and proved on record. The driver of the truck admits that he is facing a criminal trial in respect of the same accident. The driver while appearing as RW -1 states that he had gone to Shimla about 3 -4 months earlier and when he came back then he was told by his family members that one day prior to his coming home the police officials had come looking for him and it was thereafter he came to know that he had been wrongly involved in this case. According to the driver no accident had taken place and he was not even in his village when the accident took place. This testimony of the driver is totally contradicted by the testimony of the owner that he had handed over his truck to the driver and the driver had taken the truck to his village Baruhi. The stand of the driver is totally falsified by the statement of the owner. The F.I.R. was proved on record by PW -3 Trilok Chand, Criminal Ahlmad in the Court of Additional C.J.M. Una. PW -4 Jagan Nath states that about four years back when he was sitting in his home he heard a loud noise and then saw that the truck had fallen down from the road. He saw two labourers who were in the truck had been injured.