- (1.) The appeal is by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation ascertained for the death of a male aged 35 years. The claimants were the widow, two minor sons, a minor daughter and mother of the deceased. The deceased was a pillion rider in a motorcycle and the motorcyclist himself was injured in the accident and his appeal for enhancement of claim for compensation is a subject of appeal in FAO No.1243 of 1993.
(2.) The accident was said to have taken place on 08.02.1989 when the motorcycle in which the deceased and the injured were proceeding collided with the insured's truck coming from the opposite direction. The accident was spoken to by the injured claimant himself as well as by AW2-Raj Joginder Singh, who claimed that he was following them in his own motorcycle and he was a personal witness to the fact that the driver of the truck was driving rashly and after the collision, he stopped the vehicle, got down but drove away in his truck without minding the injured and the deceased, if they were given any medical attention at all. The driver himself was examined as a witness as RW-2 and it was his contention that he had not driven the vehicle HYN-2668 and that he had not even been employed by the owner of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle, who was arrayed as the 4 th respondent, was examined as RW-1, gave evidence to the effect that the truck was in a garage between 29.01.1989 to 13.02.1989 and the vehicle, therefore, could not have been involved in the incident on 08.02.1989 in a public place. The motor mechanic, who was running the garage was examined to say that he had attended to the vehicle, but there was a significant contradiction in his evidence regarding the time when the vehicle was in the garage. He stated that the vehicle was brought to the garage on two different dates and his evidence contradicted the owner's evidence that the vehicle was in his garage for a long period in the manner spoken to by RW-1. There was also a vital contradiction in the evidence of the driver who said that he had not been employed by the 4 th respondent and that he was employed as a driver in another truck No.PJT-521 owned by Roop Singh. The owner of the vehicle HYN-2668 which had been involved in the accident had admitted that the first respondent was the driver and that he had been entrusted with the vehicle.
(3.) The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the owner-insured made elaborate references to the evidence of the eyewitnesses about whether the driver got down from the vehicle or whether he had driven without getting down and also pointed out to the fact that if AW-1 had noticed the vehicle registration number and had informed AW-2, the FIR itself did not contain any reference about the vehicle number. It was most unlikely that AW-2 who lodged FIR could not have made reference of the vehicle number if he had been apprised of the vehicle number. According to him, the accident itself could not have taken place involving the 4 th respondent's truck.;