N.N.MITHAL, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal Under Section HOD of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the conductor of the bus No USR 8374 which was involved in an accident with another truck No. UST 6427.
(2.) ACCORDING to the admitted facts the bus in question had caused damage to the truck No. UST 6427 while it was parked infront of the shop of M/s. Mohan Lal Arhti at about 9.30 A.M. on 10 2-1987. The owner of the truck filed a petition Under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming damages caused to the truck. The claim has been allowed to the extent of Rs. 3500/- by the Motor Accident (Claims) Tribunal. The bus in question was admittedly owned by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation which was not preferred to file any appeal against the award. Only the conductor of the bus has come in appeal. The only question which is relevant for the purposes of appeal is whether at the relevant time the appellant was driving the bus or not. According to his case the driver of the bus was one Sheo Singh and that the appellant was not at the wheels when the accident took place. His case is that he was employed by the U.P.S R.T.C. as a conductor and not for driving the bus. He admits that the bus had collided with the truck in question, but according to him he was not present at that time as he had gone to the booking office and on his return he found that the accident had taken place. However, in cross-examination he admitted that he had alighted from the bus about 50 yards before reaching Khatima bus stand. This is obviously in contradiction with the earlier statement that he had gone to the booking office at Khatima when the accident took place.
(3.) ON the other hand the owner of the bus has examined Mohmmad Zafar (P.W. 1) who was the driver of the truck at the relevant time and two other witnesses. P.W. 1 has stated that soon after the accident he had caught hold of the appellant on the spot. However, he gave his name as Hari Shanker instead of Hari Prakash. Much has been urged by the appellant on account of the discrepancy in his statement and it is contended that the appellant had never been caught on the spot by P.W. 1. The mere discrepancy of this tribunal nature in the name of the appellant will not make the statement of P.W. 1 as unreliable. The Tribunal has accepted the version of the P.W. 1 and 1 find no reason to disagree with its findings. ;