SHANTI Vs. RAM KARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three appeals by the legal representatives of three persons namely, Prem Prakash alias Prem Mohan, Arvind Kumar and Ashok Kumar, who died in an accident while they were on a motor cycle, which is alleged to have collided with a truck. It is alleged that the accident had happened on October 10, 1977 at 10. 00 AM near Mahuwa bus stand. The motorcycle was bearing No. DHT 2547 and was being driven by Arvind Kumar. The other three persons, who were sitting on this vehicle were Prem Prakash, Ashok Kumar and Anand Kumar. They were coming from Rajgarh to Alwar. The number of the Truck was RJA 2936 and was being driven by Ram Karan and owned by Ismail and Madanlal respondents. The truck was insured with M/s United India Fire and General Insurance Company. The motor cycle was insured with National Insurance Company. In the unfortunate accident only Anand Kumar serviced to narrate the tragic story of the accident.

(2.) A report was lodged in the Police and the police seized the vehicles, prepared the necessary documents and by the legal representatives of the three deceased i. e. Prem Prakash, Arvind Kumar and Ashok Kumar.

(3.) THE Tribunal has entered into a detailed discussion of his statement and I am inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Jain that the Tribunal forgot that the standard of proof in civil cases and more so in the accident claims tribunal is different from that of a criminal case. Mr. Jain is justified in his criticism that the Tribunal considered almost every sentence of the statement at various steps in order to discard it and then as if the claimants were required to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, held that the claimants have failed to prove their case. To illustrate, when the witness said that the fourth man was surviving and he was breathing, the Tribunal jumped to the conclusion that from this the witness meant that the fourth man was also seriously injured, but since he was not seriously injured, therefore, the witness was not present at the time of occurrence. THE Tribunal did not consider the important feature of the case that the eye witness Anand Kumar was taken in the bus by this witness to Rajgarh and this part of the case is corroborated. THE Tribunal on the contrary attached undue importance to minor discrepancies in statements of minor exaggerations, even if they are held to be so witness. Anandkumar stated that after the accident he tried to stop the truck. He for that purpose gave a call to the truck driver. THE Tribunal has made much capital out of this statement by comparing the statement of Shambhu Dayal, who has stated that Anand Kumar was lying. In my opinion, both can be correct and consistent. On the spur of the accident for a few moments when the blood is hot, a person falling from the motor cycle can re-act and call the truck driver to stop, though he may not be able to stand soon after the accident and lay down. It is very surprising that the Tribunal has tried to give undue importance to every feature of the case howsoever minor it may be.