HARI SINGH Vs. AYODHYA PRASAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 22.03.1995, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.85,280/- along with 12% interest to respondent Nos.1 to 4, the appellants, the driver and the owner of the offending truck, have approached this Court.

(2.) SHORTLY the facts of the case are that on 28.6.1985, Raj Kumar was going on a motorcycle along with his friend, Ramesh Dutt Sharma, from Vijay Nagar to Beawar. Near Sheopura Ghata a truck, driven by appellant No.1, driven in rash and negligent manner, came and collided with the motorcycle. Consequently, Raj Kumar expired. Since the claimants-respondents had lost the sole bread earner of the family, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to buttress their contention, they examined three witnesses and submitted certain documentary evidence. The appellants examined themselves as witnesses and also submitted few documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal passed the award, as aforementioned. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) WHILE appreciating the evidence of the eye-witness along with the evidence of the appellants, the learned Tribunal has given cogent reasons for disbelieving the testimony of the appellants. The learned Tribunal has clearly noted that Hari Singh, the driver of the truck, on the one hand, had claimed that the deceased was over-taking the truck from the left side, and yet on the other hand, had claimed that he could see the over-taking while looking into the rear-view mirror placed on the right side of the truck. The learned Tribunal is certainly justified in concluding that a person who overtakes from the left side, cannot be seen in the right side rear-view mirror of the truck. Moreover, he has noticed the fact that according to the appellants, the deceased was riding the motorcycle in drinking position. Yet, according to the Post-Mortem report, there is no evidence to show that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol. Furthermore, the fact that the truck did not suffer from any mechanical problems was a premise taken by the learned Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the accident was not caused due to mechanical failure of the truck. But, in fact, it was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant No.1. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by him cannot be faulted.