- (1.) THIS appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act) is directed against the im pugned order dated 1/- 10-1988 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ III Additional District Judge, Dehradun (for short the Tribunal), in Motor Acci dent Claim Petition No. 164 of 1986, Shanti Devi and others Vs. Union of India, whereby the claim petition was dismissed.
(2.) FACTS of the case, in brief, are that Shiva Prasad Saklani, husband of claimant no. 1 - appellant, aged 63 years and a retired pensioner of the Post and Telegraph Department lost his life in a motor vehicle accident on 11-2-1986 involving army vehicle no. 85b 33397 owned by Union of India. According to the claimants the deceased was going from Ballupur Chowk towards Balliwali (Kanwali)on the fateful day at about 6. 15 p. m. When he reached in front of Wadia Institute on General Mahadev Singh Road, the offending Army vehicle driven rashly and negligently hit the cy clist-deceased, who sustained fatal inju ries and became unconscious. The de ceased was rushed to Doon Hospital, where he was declared dead. The claim ants filed the claim petition for compen sation of Rs. 1,20,000/- on different counts. The opposite party no. 2 is the controller of the vehicle and opposite party no. 3 is the driver of the offend ing Army vehicle. The opposite parties no. 1 to 3 resisted the claim petition and filed their joint written statement. However, the al legations made in the claim petitions were died (sic ). In the additional pleas, the opposite parties half heartedly ad mitted the factum of accident by assert ing that on the date time and place, the Army vehicle took over the cyclist who suddenly lost balance of the cycle and struck with the rear portion of the Army vehicle and due to the collision the cy clist fell down. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed following issues : 1. Whether Shiv Prasad Saklani died in an accident with vehicle no. 85b 33397 belonging to O. P. No. 1 and driven by opposite party no. 3? 2. Whether the accident in question occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of vehicle no. 85b 33397 ? 3. To what amount of compensa tion, if any, are petitioners enti tled ? 4. To what other relief, if any, are the petitioners entitled ?
(3.) THE learned Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties, heard them and after perusing the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the claimants failed to prove that the acci dent in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Jeep-opposite no. 3. THE learned Tribu nal has however worked out the amount of compensation of Rs. 42,000/ -. Ulti mately, the claim petition was dismissed by the impugned order dated 1/- 10-1988 on account of its finding on Issue Nos. 1 and 2. Aggrieved, the claimant Shanti Devi has preferred the appeal be fore this Court. In this appeal, the finding of the learned Tribunal has been assailed mainly on the ground that the finding of the Tribunal on the point of negligence is contrary to the evidence on record. It has been contended that the learned Tri bunal has not properly appreciated the evidence in the light of the written state ment filed by the opposite parties.;