KHINCHI Vs. KALURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having lost her husband and having lost the case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal") the Appellants, the wife and the children, have challenged the award dated 6th November, 2008.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 31st July, 2002 while Ravinder Singh Tanwar was going on his motorcycle, bearing No. RJ-01-11, for attending his duty, suddenly a dumper bearing No. RJ-02-G-3697, which was being driven rashly and negligently, came and dashed against the said motorcyle. Resultantly, Ravinder Singh sustained injuries on various parts of the body, ultimately, he died. A claim petition was filed by the complainants. The Respondents contested the claim petition and denied the averments made by the Appellants. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and various documents were exhibited. On the other hand, the Respondents did not produce any evidence. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal, vide its award dated 6th November, 2008, decided the claim petition. Since the claim petition was dismissed, the Appellants have filed the present appeal before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Vinay Mathur, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal has mis-appreciated the evidence which was readily available on record. According to A.W.2, Niranjan Lal, even in his cross-examination, he had clearly stated that his statement was indeed recorded by the police under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure However, the learned Tribunal has held that Niranjan Lal's statement under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure were never recorded by the police. Thus, the learned Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the testimony of Niranjan Lal ostensibly on the ground that his statement was not recorded by the police. Obviously, the learned Tribunal has mis-read the evidence. The conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the evidence available on record. Secondly, the learned Tribunal has ignored the mechanical report which was submitted before it and was marked as Exhibit-13. According to mechanical report, the front side of bumper clearly showed that the number plate of the bumper was squashed, the radiator had been pushed back, the headlight of the driver side was broken, the radiator fan had entered into engine part, and there was blood on the left side of the tyre. According to the learned Counsel, clearly the dumper had met with a head on collision. This document corroborates the testimony of A.W.2. Since the learned Tribunal has overlooked Exhibit-13, it has failed to notice that Exhibit-13 indeed, corroborates the testimony of Niranjan Lal, A.W.2. Hence, the award suffers from mis-appreciation of evidence.