DAYAMANTI DEVI Vs. SURESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the jugment passed by the 3rd. Additional District 25. Judge, Nalanda, in Claim case no. 16 of 1989.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the widow of one Nand Lal Prasad, the sons and daughters filed the aforesaid claim case where they had sought compensation for the death of Nand Lal Prasad in an accident caused by one vehicle bearing no. BPl 7565 owned by the father of respondent nos. 1 to 7, namely, late Prasadi Singh and driven by respondent no. 8 Indradeo Prasad on 30.5.89 at 8.30 30 A.M. near the Noorsarai High School (in the district of Nalanda). The lower court on the basis of evidence adduced by the claimants (appellants) as also the owner of the vehicle dismissed the claim of the appellants.

(3.) OF course, when an accident is admitted involving a particular deceased, the moot question in a claim case is that which of the vehicles caused the alleged accident and who was liable to pay compensation to the heirs of the deceased. Under the law, normally the owner of the concerned vehicle is liable to pay compensation. But it must be proved by evidence on record that a particular 15. vehicle owned by a particular person caused the alleged accident. Simply because there was no challenge to the concerned accident, that will not amount to an inference that the particular owner of a particular vehicle, who is sued in a claims case, shall be liable to pay the compensation money, unless it was proved that his vehicle caused the alleged accident. So, the evidence led by the claimants in this connection was the sole guiding factor. In this connection, I find that the 20. claimants had examined six witnesses. P. W. 6 was a formal witness who brought on the record salary certificate of the deceased who was a V.L.W. (Ext. 2). P. W. 5 was photographer who had taken photograph of BPI 7565 which was parked near the Noorsarai High School gate. P. W. 4 was a cultivator who while returning from Noorsarai market to his own village came to the Noorsarai High School and found one person lying on the road dead and who did not identify this 25. man P. W. 3 was the Choukidar, on whose fardbeyan the case was registered. This witness said that on the alleged date and time when he was near the school gate he saw that a maxi -taxi was coming from the northern direction and a scooter driven by a person was coming from the southern direction. Both the scooter and the maxi -taxi collided near the school gate. The maxi -taxi dragged the scooter to some distance causing instantaneous desth to the scaooter driver. P. W. 2 was 30. another Choukidar who informed the police, then Dinesh Sharma, Jamadar, came to the place of occurrence, to whom this witness (P. W. 3) made his statement on which he put his signature. He further said in chief itself that he was not a thoroughly literate person, he any how knew to put his signature. In chief he failed to give the number of maxi -taxi which caused the alleged accident. In cross -examination at paragraph 10 he said that Ramesh Paswan, A. W. 2, had reached the place of 35 occurrence before himself (this witness). He further stated that on the date of occurrence at the alleged time the school was open and students and teachers from the school came to the place of occurrence. P. W. 2 was another choukidar who also claimed to be an eye -witness and he has given the number of mixi -taxi as BPf 7565, but in cross -examination at page 4, paragraph 4 he said that he had not given the vehicle number (of the maxitaxi) nor in his presence the Daroga was 40. informed of the number of the maxi -taxi. So, it is apparent that this witness gave the number of the maxi -taxi in chief, perhaps, on being informed by others before he was examined in chief in court, P. W. 1 was one of the claimants. He is not an eye -witness to the alleged occurrence. So, he was not competent to speak as to the vehicle which allegedly caused the alleged accident in which his father was killed. Although he said that he had gone to the police station where he had seen the 45. allegedly seized vehicle which bore the number BPI 7565.