RAM PYARI Vs. BHARAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed Under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been preferred against the award dated 27.1.87 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (in short the 'Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants was dismissed on the ground that they had failed to prove that the accident in question wherein Kana died was caused by Truck No. RRR -9327.

(2.) STATED in succinct, the relevant facts are that on the night intervening 6th and 7th November, 1981 deceased Kana was travelling from Tonk and going to Village Ghas in a camel cart alongwith AW 2 Mohar Pal and AW 3 Jaipal. At about 4.00 a.m., when they reached ahead of Rustumganj, Truck No. RRR -9327, which was coming on a very high speed from Uniyara side and going towards Tonk hit their camel cart with the result that Kana fell down, sustained multiple severe injuries and died instantaneously. It is alleged that at the time of the accident the camel cart was going on its left side on the Kachha Path way and that the offending truck after coming on the wrong side had dashed with the said camel cart. It is further alleged that since a wooden plank of the camel cart had entangled into the truck as such it stopped at a distance of about one furlong and that Jaipal went near that truck and jotted down its number. On 7.11.81 at about 8.25 a.m., Jaipal lodged a written report at Police Station Kotwali, Tonk, whereupon FIR Ex. 1 was drawn, Crime No. 241/81 was registered and after usual investigation a challan was filed against the driver Bharat Singh (respondent No. 2) for the offences Under Sections 297, 337 and 304A, IPC. Appellant Smt. Ram Pyari the widow, two minor sons and parents of the deceased filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,41,200/ -.

(3.) THE learned Tribunal framed as many as three issues and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties held that the statements of eye -witnesses AW 2 Moharpal and AW 3 Jaipal were replete with material contradictions and that from the documentary evidence adduced by the respondents, it appeared that the said truck, which was carrying cement bags from Sawaimadhopur to Jaipur, had passed from the Octroi Post Tonk on 16.11.81 at about 9.30 a.m. and reached the Sanganer Octroi Post at 12.10 a.m. on 17.11.81 and, therefore, the claimant petitioner had miserably failed to prove that the offending vehicle, which dashed with the camel cart was Truck No. RRR -9327. He accordingly without quantifying any compensation, dismissed the claim petition. Hence this appeal.