Arvind Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) This First Appeal From Order is preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.11.2000, passed by the Additional District Judge / Prescribed Authority, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ballia, in Claim Case No. 13 of 1997, whereby Rs. 1,25,800/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded as compensation to the claimants-respondents.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in this case factum of accident alleged to have been caused by Tractor no. U.P. 60-A-0549, is absolutely false hence denied. He also submits that the factum of incident is not proved by eye count testimony of any witness. No such accident as alleged was ever caused by the aforesaid vehicle. Merely because certain papers was filed by the police that alone is not sufficient to fasten responsibility of causing accident by the aforesaid vehicle. Further, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the amount of compensation, which is under the circumstances is too excessive. Learned counsel for the appellants further adds that the liability to pay the amount of compensation has wrongly been fixed upon the appellants as the driver shown to ply the vehicle is not known to the appellants and the appellants never engaged the driver to drive the tractor in question. The son of the appellant used to drive the tractor in question whose valid licence was placed on record which was wrongly disbelieved by the Tribunal. The driving licence which placed by the appellants ought to have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant that actually the vehicle in question was driven by his son and not by the driver involved in this case has rightly been disbelieved by the Tribunal on cogent and solid documents.;