KANA RAM Vs. PREMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT -claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988') for assailing the impugned judgment and award dated 20.11.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer (for short, 'the learned Tribunal') whereby their Claim Petition No. 157/1997 under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 is dismissed by the learned Tribunal.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 19.03.1997 when deceased -Kutala Ram was travelling in truck No. RJ -04/G -0781 as Khalasi on the route of Pilibanga to Suratgarh at about 8.30 P.M., the truck dashed with a Jonga Jeep No. RJ -21 -C -0076. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Prema Ram and due to its high speed, the driver lost control on the vehicle and hit Jonga from behind and thereafter the truck fell down to a nearby deep splash area and submerged into water up to its bumper. The impact of accident was so severe that deceased Kutla Ram suffered grave and serious injuries on his head and eventually succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The accident was immediately reported to Police Station, Suratgarh. On the strength of these averments, the appellant -claimants quantified the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 22 Lacs in their claim petition by asserting that deceased was employed as a Khalasi earning monthly wages of Rs. 3,000/ - and at the time of his death he was 45 years old. Under different heads, the total amount of compensation is worked out.

(3.) ON the basis of pleadings of rival parties, the learned Tribunal settled three issues for determination. The appellant -claimants examined three witnesses, and on behalf of respondents one witness appeared and testified on oath. The learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim decided Issue No. 1 regarding rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver against the appellants and in favour of respondents. While recording its finding, the learned Tribunal has disbelieved the version of the alleged eye witness, and has also observed that as the first informant, who has lodged FIR, has not appeared in the witness box, contents of the FIR cannot be relied upon. In totality, the learned Tribunal has found that there is no proof about the fact that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. While taking note of the finding on Issue No. 1, no adjudication as such is made by learned Tribunal on Issue No. 2 regarding quantum of compensation and the same is also decided against the appellants. Adverting to Issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal on evaluation of evidence and other materials available on record has found that at the time of accident offending vehicle truck was insured with the respondent -Insurance Company, and accordingly, the said issue is decided in favour of appellant -claimants.