K.C.AGARWAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by Smt. Radha against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bijnor, dated May, 23, 1979, rejecting her claim petition.
(2.) HOSHIAR Singh, the husband of Smt. Radha who was aged about 45 years, was watching the procession of Ravi Das Jayanti at about 5 p.m. on February 4, 1977, when Anis, driver of Truck No. UPN 1884 own by Ashok Kumar and Murari Singh, came driving rashly and negligently the aforesaid truck and ran over the same on Hoshiar Singh'. He died on the spot. Immediately at about 6-15 p m. a first information report was lodged mentioning the number of truck (UPN 1884) with which the accident was alleged to have taken place. Hoshiar Singh was employed in the sugar mills as Palledar. The claim petition was contested by a joint written statement filed on behalf of Ashok kumar and Murari Singh. Murari Singh denied that he owned the aforesaid truck No. UPN 1884 and stated that he had been unnecessarily impleaded. They denied that the truck was not being rashly driven by Anis on that date. They also alleged that they were not owners. In the written statement it was alleged that the truck was loaded with sugar cane and was being driven slowly. When it reached near the place where Hoshiar Singh was standing, the deceased had a brief talk with Anis and after Anis left the place another truck No. UPY 717 came at the scene and knocked down Hoshiar Singh. The claim of the respondent was that the liability of truck No. UPN 1884 was being wrongly fastened on truck No. UPY 717.
(3.) SMT . Radha the appellant, examined four eye witnesses of the accident ; they were Jaimal Singh PW 1, Malhu Singh PW 2, Balbir Singh PW 3 and Mahabir Singh PW 4. Out of these witnesses Malhu Singh was a relation. These witnesses have been disbelieved by the Tribunal on flimsy and superficial grounds. The Tribunal found in consequential contradictions in the statements of one with the other and discarded the same. Malhu Singh, who had lodged the first information report, was disbelieved because he was in service of one Satya Prakash who was related to the deceased Hoshiar Singh. Contradictions about the place on which accident took place was held by the Tribunal to be sufficient to discard the eye witnesses. To us it appears that the Tribunal decided the claim petition treating it to be a criminal case. The approach of a Criminal Court in trying a case under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is quite different while that which the Tribunal has to have while deciding a claim petition. In a claim petition the approach should be that of civil court, which is required in law to give its finding on probabilities and not on proving the offence beyond reasonable doubts.;