RUGGA SINGH Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Beawar by which the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Hari Singh, who died as a result of the accident caused by vehicle No. HR 38-BJ 7971 which was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3, has been rejected only on the ground that the eyewitness to the accident was not produced by the claimant-respondent.

(2.) Having heard the counsel for the parties and after perusing the award of the Tribunal rejecting the claim petition, it could be noticed that the accident caused by the vehicle No. HR 38-BJ 7971 took place on 18.3.1998 and the first information report was duly lodged on the same date disclosing the identity of the offending vehicle which caused the accident vide Exh. 2. It is thus obvious from this that the date of the accident and the identity of the vehicle was both disclosed immediately after the accident and there is no lack of evidence on this point. This solitary evidence alone should have been enough for the Claims Tribunal to entertain the claim petition and conduct the proceeding for determining the compensation after taking all relevant facts into consideration, but the Tribunal appears to have rejected the claim of the appellants solely on the ground that the eyewitness to the accident was not produced by the claimants-respondents.

(3.) It is difficult to appreciate this approach of the Tribunal as the Judge of the Tribunal ought to have known that it is the factum of accident, involvement of the deceased in the accident and the identity of the vehicle which are the most relevant considerations for entertaining a claim and the eyewitness, if any, to the accident are only witnesses on the point of corroboration of the accident. If the factum of the accident is proved by a single circumstance, which is indicated from the first information report wherein the identity of the vehicle and death of the deceased is clearly proved, then the fact that it was not corroborated by adducing evidence of the eyewitnesses cannot be a reason to disbelieve the unimpeachable evidence that the accident was caused by the vehicle whose identity has prima facie been proved and even if there be any doubt about its identity, the same can definitely be scrutinised at the stage of determination of the proceeding. But to reject the claim itself in spite of prima facie proof of involvement of the vehicle as also the fact that accident indeed took place, is bound to result into serious miscarriage of justice. Ignoring ample evidence in regard to the factum of accident which has to be held as primary evidence on the ground that the secondary evidence of eyewitnesses were not available, can hardly be held to be a sound reasoning to reject the claim itself. Tribunal, therefore, was clearly in error in rejecting the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants at its initiation itself on the ground that the eyewitness to the accident had not been produced. This reason relied upon by the Tribunal while rejecting the claim petition of claimants-respondents is not fit to be upheld. Consequently, the impugned order of the Tribunal rejecting the claim petition is set aside which has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice to the interest of the dependants of the deceased-appellant.