- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the District Judge, Saharanpur, acting as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, awarding a sum of Rupees 10, 400/- as compensation to Sukhbir Singh, respondent No. 1, against the appellants.
(2.) APPELLANT No. 1 Ganga Sugar Cor poration Limited, Deoband, owns a jeep No. USV 5511. On the night of March 5, 1968, this jeep was sent to Police Station, Deoband at the request of the Station Officer. It was being driven by Lal Singh driver, ap pellant No. 3. At about 9.30 p. m. the driver found that his way was blocked by a Barat party, some of the members of which were dancing on the road to the tune of the band which was accompanying the Barat. The driver got down from the jeep leaving the ignition keys in the jeep and went to the Police Station. While the driver had gone to the Police Station, someone drove the jeep and caused an accident whereby Sukhbir Singh's left hand was severed from the forearm. Sukhbir Singh was standing at that time watching the Barat near an electric pole. His left arm was crushed, between the jeep and the electric pole. Sukhbir Singh was taken to the Hospital, where he remained from March 6, 1968 to April 15, 1968. On May 3, 1968, Sukhbir Singh lodged his claim be fore the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Sfaaranpur (District Judge, Saharanpur), claim ing a sum of Rs. 51, 000/- as compensation. To his claim Sukhbir Singh impleaded four parties. The first party was the Ganga Sugar Corporation Limited, Deoband, the owner of the jeep. The\ second party was the New Assurance Company Limited Delhi with h the jeep was insured. The third party was Sri S. N. Sharma, the Factory Manager of the Ganga Sugar Corporation Limited. According to the claimant, Sri S. N. Sharma was in the jeep at the time it was being driven to the Police Station and that it was he who drove the jeep after the driver left and caused the accident. The fourth party was Lal Singh, the driver of jeep. The Ganga Sugar Cor poration Limited filed a written statement denying its liability fox payment of any compensation to the claimant. It also challenged the amount of compensation claimed. It, fur ther, set up a case that Sri S. N. Sharma, the Factory Manager, was not in the jeep, that he was not driving the jeep when the accident occurred and that it was some member of the marriage party who unauthorisedly drove the jeep in the driver's absence and caused the accident. According to the Corporation's written statement the Station Officer had tele phoned the Assistant Manager of the Cor poration to send the jeep for some urgent Government work at 9.30 p.m. and accord ingly the jeep was sent to the Police Station with driver Lal Singh and that there Vas no one else with him in the jeep. Driver Lal Singh filed a written statement substantially on the same lines as the written statement of the Corporation. Sri Sharma also filed a written statement on the same lines. He fur ther added that he did not know driving at all, that he was not in the jeep on that night and that between 8 and 10 p. m. on the night of occurrence he was at the house of Sri G. D. Saluja, Controller of Accounts of the Ganga Sugar Corporation Limited, who had invited him for dinner. The insurance company also filed a written statement disclaiming all liabi lity for the compensation on the ground that at the time of the accident the jeep was being driven by an unauthorised person. On the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondent No. 3 Sri S. N. Sharma was driving the jeep at the time of the accident? If not, what is its effect? 2. Whether at the time of the accident the jeep was being driven by a miscreant? 3. To what amount of compensation, if any, is the claimant entitled?
(3.) IN support of his case the claimant examined himself as A. W. 1, Kunwar Sen as A. W. 2, Jai Prakash as A, W. 3 and Dr. B. G. Mathur as A. W, 4. The appellants also examined four witnesses, namely, Lal Singh driver (D. W. 1), Sri S. N. Sharma (D. W. 2), Bal Krishan (D. W. 3) and Sri Saluja (D. W. 4).;