RADHEY SHYAM PRASAD Vs. KRIPA TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 5.8.1996 passed by the then District Judge cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad, in Title Suit No. 8 of 1982 awarding compensation of Rs. 96, 000/ in favour of the claimants respondents including the interest at the rate of six per cent per annum. The award has been made against the owner of the vehicle with stipulation that the liability of the Insurance Company i.e. the New India Assurance Company Limited shall be to the extent of the liability covered under the Insurance Policy.

(2.) THE deceased Sita Ram Tiwary was a passenger of the Trekker bearing registration No. BHU 9282 on 6.10.1981 and when he was proceeding to Chas at about 10.30 A.N., the said Trekker reached near Aerodrome, another Trekker bearing registration No. BHW 1404 came in at high Speed from the opposite direction and dashed Trekker No. BHU 9282 causing serious injury to the deceased. Trekker No. 1404 belonged to the appellant Radhey Shyam Prasad and was driven at the relevant time by Manindra Bhushan Ambastha. In serious injured condition, the deceased was removed to Bokaro General Hospital where he succumed to the injuries. The police registered a case being B.S. City P.S. Case No. 597 of 1991 under Section 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was the only son of the claimant who was running a grocery shop at the relevant time and also running a private School in the Mohalla and has been earning a decent amount per month and a daim of Rs. 3, 00, 000/ (Rupees three lacs) has been claimed.

(3.) FOR and on behalf of the claimants, witnesses have been examined in the case. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the witnesses of the faction for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. trekker No. BHW 1404. The learned claims tribunal scrutinised the evidence adduced in the case from, the side of the claimants and also adduced the evidence of D.W. 1 who, had simply denied that his driver was not responsible for causing the accident. In course of trial/enquiry, the factum of accident was not denied. The learned tribunal had after scrutinising the evidence and also on the principle of res ipsa loquitor held that the way the accident occurred clearly revealed that the trekker bearing No. BHW 1404 was the offending vehicle as it was being driven rashly and negligently.