DHANVIR SINGH Vs. DEEP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is the owner of tractor No. HP-17-4329, has been held liable to compensate the respondent whose father died while traveling on the tractor involved in the accident, challenges the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Sirmour District at Nahan on the ground that his tractor was never involved in the accident and that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal are against the evidence on record.

(2.) The learned Tribunal relied upon the evidence of PW-2 Chet Ram, who was an eye witness to the accident, and held that considering the totality of the evidence it was worthy of credence. The claim petition was allowed. The learned Tribunal also took into consideration Ext. PW-3/A which is FIR lodged with respect to the accident in question. On the evidence of RW-1/appellant, the Court holds that his evidence is not worthy of credence when he says that he was driving the tractor and that Kashmir Singh was never driving the tractor or engaged for this purpose. The statement of RW-1 is contradicted with the statement of RW-2 Malkhan Singh who states that the tractor was being driven by Kashmir Singh. On the totality of the evidence on record, I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which has properly assessed the evidence. The testimony of RW-1, which has rightly been rejected, has been contradicted by Malkhan Singh (RW-2). One other fact needs to be noticed is that the appellant has not produced on record any document to show that the tractor was in fact undergoing repairs on the date of the accident or any other date nor any record has been produced from the shop of the mechanic to establish the fact whether the tractor was road worthy or not.

(3.) There is, thus, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.