NOOR JAHAN Vs. ARBIND PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ajay Kumar for the appellants, and Mr. Shailendra Kumar for respondent no. 3 (the New India Assurance Company Limited). None has appeared on behalf of the remaining respondents. These severv appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 1.6.2000, passed by the learned 1st. Additional District Judge -cum -Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarpur, whereby four of the claim cases under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act '), have been dismissed and the remaining three claims cases have been allowed in part.

(2.) THE basic facts are not in dispute and all the claims cases are with respect to the same accident. A coal -laden truck bearing registration no. U.R -78 -9569, carrying 14 labourers working at Zorhat (Assam), met with an accident near village Hari Shankar Maniyari on N.H. 28 within the district of Muzaffarpur (Bihar), on 4.3.1990. Nine of the said labourers died and the remaining five of them suffered injuries. Altogether nine claim cases were filed before the Claims Tribunal atMuzaffarpur and eight of which were disposed of by a common judgment impugned herein. Four of the claim cases were dismissed, and three were allowed in part. One claimant died during the pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal and therefore, the same was dropped. In so far as the 9th case is concerned, he (the claimant) has not preferred appeal before this Court. As stated hereinabove, all the eight cases were disposed of by the impugned judgment, but only seven have come up to this Court in separate appeals and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(3.) WE now take up M.A. No. 500 of 2000, arising out of Claim Case No. 54 of 1990. The husband of this appellant, namely, Sk. Sobrati, was also travelling in the same truck and met with the accident. This claim case has been dismissed on the ground that there is a variation in the age of her husband as on the date of death stated in her deposition. The learned Claims Tribunal has stated that the applicant (the widow) has stated in paragraph 6 of her deposition that she was elder than her husband. He was aged 40 years, and she is 46 years of age. It is further stated at another place in her deposition that she was 25 -26 years of age. I disagree with the ground of dismissal taken by the learned Claims Tribunal for the reason that she being an illiterate and rustic woman, might have made the mistake on account of slip of the tongue due to a feeling of trepidation on account of the court atmosphere. The mistake may also be attributable to slip of the pen on the part of the learned Claims Tribunal. Furthermore, this description is inconsequential in determining the whole question. It appears to me on a plain reading of the deposition of the applicant (appellant) that the husband was 40 years of age on the date of death which is more consistent with her deposition to the effect that she was elder to her husband, the difference would not normally be as wide as 25 -26 years of age between her and the husband. Difference of six years between them in the present case appears to be more probable than the order version which appears to me to be on account of some error discussed hereinabove. Furthermore, this issue does not go to the root of the matter. I, therefore, hold that the husband was aged 40, years on the date of the accident.