RAMLAYAK RAM Vs. UMRAWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment passed by Mr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Additional District Judge-I, Rohtas at Sassaram-cum-Claims Tribunal, in M.V. Claim Case No. 36 of 1993. The claim of the appellants for compensation on account of the death of Dharamchandra Kumar, their son, was rejected by the Tribunal; and hence this appeal.

(2.) The relevant facts are that on 10.1.93 the deceased Dharamchandra Kumar, a student of class IX, along with one Umesh Kumar, was proceeding on a bicycle from village Jagadeeh. When they reached the village Purnadeeh on the metalled road a truck bearing the registration No. BR 13H 9325 coming from the opposite direction dashed the cyclists as a result of which Dharamchandra Kumar died and his companion Umesh Kumar was thrown off the cycle. The deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs. 1,500 by running a laundry. The applicant (appellants before this court) had examined six witnesses. But of whom PW 1 was Ramlayak Ram, one of the claimants (father of the deceased). PW 2 was Umesh Kumar, companion of the deceased. PW 3 was Parvati Devi (mother of the deceased and one of the claimants). PW 4 was Bodha Ram and PW 5 was Shiv-shankar Prasad. PW 6 was a formal witness who brought on record certain papers. Thus, PWs 2, 4 and 5 were the so-called eyewitnesses to the alleged occurrence. The trial court disbelieved the evidence of PW 4 on the ground that he was at a distance of half kilometre when the alleged occurrence took place and, therefore, he was not an eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. He has analysed the evidence of PW 5 and opined that as per his admission he was 20-25 yards away when the alleged occurrence took place. So, he disbelieved the evidence of PW 5 also. He considered the evidence of remaining witnesses, PW 2 Umesh Kumar and compared his statement in court with his statement in the fardbeyan, Exh. 2 and opined that there was contradiction between the two statements and so, perhaps, the cycle received a jerk from the pressure of air omitted by the speeding truck throwing away the two occupants of the cycle. So, the Tribunal stated that the manner of occurrence was not proved. He further held that the deceased died not on account of clash with the truck, rather on account of the jerk from the air pressure of the truck. So, he rejected the claim of the appellants.

(3.) The moot question to be decided by the Tribunal was whether there was an accident involving the truck, in question, and the cycle on which the deceased and PW 2 were riding. In this connection, the evidence of PW 2 who was the prime eyewitness, is very much relevant. PW 2 has said in chief in positive terms that when he was proceeding on cycle along with his companion, a truck coming from the opposite direction dashed the cycle which made the deceased fall in the field and he himself was also thrown away. The deceased died at the spot. In cross-examination at para 7 he said that he had seen the truck coming from the opposite direction from a distance of 20 yards. The truck did not blow its horn. The cycle was taken away from the main road to the patri at the sight of the truck. At para 8 he had stated that after being dashed, he was thrown away into the field at a distance of one lathi. The Tribunal interpreted these statements of PW 2 to mean that the cyclists were thrown away by the pressure of the truck. I fail to understand the rationale of the Tribunal in interpreting the aforesaid statements of PW 2. It is mysterious as to how the Tribunal came to the conclusion that PW 2 and the deceased were thrown away from the road by mere air pressure of the truck. Learned Tribunal also considered the statement of PW 2 in his fardbeyan, Exh. 2, where he said that on account of the high speed of the truck, the cycle had received a jhatka throwing the deceased and the informant PW 2. In the fardbeyan he further said that Dharamchandra died at the spot. Thereafter, he raised alarm and several witnesses gathered and the truck was stopped by the persons who gathered.