PRATAP RAI Vs. MEERA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by Pratap Rai, one of the owners of two trucks which had head -on collusion killing Bharat Kumar Bhagat who was travelling in another truck.

(2.) THE relevant facts of this case (Claim Case No. 25 of 1991/ AC No. 2/99) are that on 8th March 1991, Truck bearing Regd. No. BRK 6641 was hired by certain traders to carry goods from Guiabbagh. When this truck left Gulabbagh and it reached Singheshwar Sthan, on the way, another truck bearing Regd. No. BRK 4012 coming from opposite direction collided with the first mentioned Truck (BRK 6641). The result was that the deceased who was sitting on the truck bearing Regd. No. 6641 died because both the trucks had turned turtle on account of head on collision. It is the case of the appellant before this Court who is owner of Truck bearing Regd. No. 4012. that his truck was passing on the road empty. There was no passenger on his truck also. Moreover, some witnesses examined in the lower court stated that the truck driver of the Truck bearing Regd. No. 6641 was intoxicated and he was driving his truck negligentiy and rashly since the very beginning. So if at all any accident took place, it was on account of negligent driving of the truck on which the deceased was sitting. So there was no liability of the appellant 'struck driver. Moreover, interim compensation was paid by the Insurance Company with which the petitioner 'struck was insured. So in this view of the matter also, the petitioner was not liable to pay compensation, even if it was held that the petitioner 'sdriver was negligent. So the appellant 'slawyer submitted that the award granted by the lower court against the petitioner was illegal and unjustified.

(3.) AS far the claim of the appellant that his driver had no hand in the alleged accident, I am to opine that, of course, certain witnesses said that the driver of truck bearing Regd. No. 6641 was intoxicated and there was admission of one witness also that the driver was being warned from the very beginning, still he failed to heed to this warning. But there are witnesses who said that the driver of the truck bearing Regd. No. 4012 was also driving the vehicle negligently and rashly and this truck was also being driven in speed. On perusal of the award dated 12th September 1994, it is apparent that the Tribunal had referred to the statements of witnesses who had spoken of the appellant 'struck being driven in speed as a result of which there was head -on collision. So I do not think the finding of the Tribunal in this connection is misplaced or misdirected or in error. The very fact that there was head - on collision between the two trucks making both of them turn turtle indicates that both the vehicles were in speed, not permitted by the Traffic Rules. If truck bearing Regd. No. 6641 only were in speed and the appellant 'struck would have been in proper speed and the driver alert, chance of head -on collision; perhaps, can be ruled out. So the circumstances of the case and the evidence of the witnesses to which the Tribunal has referred clearly indicated that both the trucks were in high speed resulting in head -on collision between the two trucks.