MEWA DEVI Vs. RAM PARKASH RAJINDER PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals (FAO (MVA) 22 of 1982 Smt. Mewa Devi and Ors. v. M/s Ram Parkash Rajinder Paul and another and FAO (MVA) No. 23 of 1982 Smt. Kamla Devi and Others v. M/s Ram Parkash Rajinder Pal and another) arise out of the same accident and the same award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul districts decided on 3-3-1982 thereby rejecting the claims of the appellant. The issues involved being common, both the appeals are being taken up for decision together.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the appellants are the dependants of the deceased in these two cases and the claim-petitions pertain to the death of Waryam Singh (FAO 22 of 1982) and Paras Ram (FAO 23 of 1982) in an accident of truck bearing No. HPM-9755 on 30-1-1981 owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No. 2. It took place near Badanu on Mandi-Kullu road at 5.30 p.m. on that day. As a result of this accident, deceased Waryam Singh succumbed to injuries in Civil Hospital, Mandi, on 4-1-1981 and deceased Paras Ram died on 5-1-1981 in the same hospital due to injuries. In both the cases, the claims are to the extent of Rupees two lacs preferred through separate claim petitions on the ground that the accident, in question, was as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle. The claims were rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the steering of the vehicle got locked as a result of which it turned to the right and fell down into the river. According to the Tribunal, it was a latent defect for which none could be held responsible. The result was that the claim petitions were dismissed. Hence these appeals by the claimants to assail the award of the Tribunal.

(3.) It is urged by Sh. M.C. Mandhotra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, that the Tribunal drew its conclusions on the basis of conjectures and surmises, otherwise there is enough evidence on the record to indicate that the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the driver. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not properly read and understood the evidence with the result that wrong conclusions have been arrived at and the same, therefore, deserve to be set aside. On the other hand, Sh. K.D. Sood, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, urges that the award of the Tribunal is correct and in view of the latent defect in the steering of the vehicle, no other conclusion could be possibly arrived at by the Tribunal. At this stage reference to the statements of material witnesses on this aspect of the matter is necessary.