USHA JHINGRAN Vs. BUDHSEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is by the unsuccessful claimants who laid a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for the death of P. N. Jhingran, husband of the first appellant and father of the remaining. On a finding that the appellants could not prove the cause of death of P. N. Jhingran, the Claims Tribunal has dismissed the entire claim. It has, however, been found that if the appellants were to succeed, the compensation payable would be Rs. 1,22,400/- with interest at 6 per cent thereon from the date of the application. The liability of the insurer, in terms of the insurance policy, has been determined at Rs. 50. 000/ -. The Tribunal also noted that only general damages were claimed. No special damages were claimed.

(2.) THE facts are that on 3. 8. 1977, P. N. Jhingran, an employee of the Sun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur, met with an accident while he was proceeding to the factory. The truck, owned by respondent No. 2 and driven by his employee (respondent No. 1), dashed against the scooter driven by the deceased P. N. Jhingran. He fell down unconscious and was removed to the hospital, where he lay in the same condition until March 8, 1978, when he died. His monthly income was then said to be Rs. 1,413/ -. Pensionary benefits were claimed at Rs. 500/- per month until the age of 75 years. The vehicle, admittedly, was insured with respondent No. 3 and its liability was to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ -. The claim was contested, but the driver was not put in the witness-box. The claimants examined witnesses, including one Theressa, a teacher in some local school, a rickshaw puller and also one Rameshwar. On assessment of that evidence and from the fact of non-examination of the driver, the Tribunal held that the truck driver was negligent and rash in driving the vehicle. It concluded that Jhingran received injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No, 1. It negatived and in our opinion rightly any defence of contributory negligence. Since we are in agreement with the view of the Tribunal in this behalf, we do not propose to deal with the evidence in detail. The evidence of Tlieressa appears to be quite convincing when she deposed that the truck driver dashed against the scooter driven by the deceased Jhingran and he could have avoided the accident, if he were cautious and not negligent. The Tribunal also rightly drew adverse inference against the respondents because of the non-examination of the driver.

(3.) IT is significant that in this case no medical evidence is adduced showing the cause of death of Jhingran. It is no doubt true, through the evidence of Theressa and Usha Jhingran, PW 1, that after receiving the injuries, the late Jhingran did not regain consciousness. No doctor was, however, examined to show that it was due to the injuries received by the deceased Jhingran, as a result of the truck dashing against his scooter, that he died. It was certainly incumbent upon the claimants to have proved the cause of death by examining the doctor, who attended the deceased or through some other expert evidence on the basis of the available record, which could have permitted the court to infer that death was the direct consequence of the injury so received. Unfortunately that has not been done. It is also not shown on record that such evidence was not available. We fail to see why an attempt was not made to bring that evidence on record. Mr. Sahani, appearing for the appellants, submitted that mere non-production of medical evidence should not result in dismissal of the entire claim. For this proposition, learned Counsel placed reliance on Swaraj Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. T. R. Raman Pillai 1968 ACJ 127 (Kerala) and Sukhdev Singh v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation 1969 ACJ 197 (Pandh ). We have perused both these decisions. We, however, do not find anything therein, which may lend support to the appellants' contention. These decisions are not at all helpful to the appellants. We, therefore, affirm the finding of the Tribunal that the appellants' have not been able to demonstrate that the death resulted from the injury sustained by the deceased on account of the accident. No compensation can, therefore, be paid to the appellants on account of the death.