SHANKER RAM Vs. AMARA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal u/s. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been preferred by Shanker Ram, whose claim petition was dismissed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur vide Judgment dated 25. 4. 1986.

(2.) IN the claim petition, it was averred that Shanker Ram, appellant was urinating on the left side of the road at Bhavi bus stand. Jeep No. RJT 3503 driven by Amara Ram struck him and he suffered various injuries. It was further averred that Claimant had to remain hospitalised and sent huge amount on his treatment. It was also averred that he used to earn Rs. 1,200/-per month prior to accident whi-ch income he could not make afterwards. It was prayed that he should be allowed Rs. 2,00,000/-as compensation. IN the written statement, the accident was denied. It was stated that on 13. 4. 1983, jeep was not on the road ant the respondents have been unnecessarily impleaded in this case. The Tribunal framed 3 issues. Claimant Shanker Ram entered into the witness box and examined PW 2 Harsukh Ram and PW 3 Pukhraj. IN rebuttal DW 1 Narendra Raj and DW 1 Amara Ram entered into the witness box. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties, found under Issue No. 1 that it was not proved that Shanker Ram sustained injuries because of rash and negligent driving of Jeep by Amara Ram. Under Issue No. 2, it was found that if issue No. 1 had not been decided against claimant, he would have been entitled to get Rs. 6,000/-as compensation. Ultimately, the claim petition was dismissed.

(3.) CONSIDERING Sec. 145 of the Evidence Act, it has to be held that the approach of the learned Tribunal was erroneous when it used the previous state-ment of the witnesses without confronting them with those statements. Bhanwar Lal was not examined before the Tribunal as eye-witness. Shanker Ram was not put any question regarding his deposition before the criminal court. It is relevant to state that the statement of Shanker Ram before Tribunal was recorded on 7. 10. 1985; whereas the said statement before the criminal Court of the witness bea-rs the date 7. 5. 1985. Thus the statements before the criminal court was recorded prior in time. Still Shanker Ram was not confronted with this statement when he was in the witness box. As such, this statement could not be used to disbelieve Shanker Ram. This Court in the case of `surendra' (supra) has held that it is not only the requirement of Sec. 145 of the Evidence Act that the witness is confronted with earlier statement, but also the principles of natural justice and equity also require that one must be allowed to explain in what circumstance he gave earlier statement. The Tribunals should have decided the matter on the basis of evidence produced in this case.