- (1.) This order will dispose of the appeal referred to above as also F.A.O. No. 233 of 1976 (Bhup Singh and another Jahangir Singh and another). Both these appeals arose out of the same accident and were consequently heard together.
(2.) On August 11, 1971 at about 8-00 A.M. there was an accident between a car and the truck on the Hansi-Barwala Road. The car involved in this accident was HRH-78 which was being driven by Rajinder Singh, claimant with the other claimant Jahangir Singh, travelling therein as a passenger. Both Rajindedr Sinhgh and Jahagir Singh received injuries in this accident in respect of which separate applications were filed by them both claiming compensation for their injuries. The truck involved in this accident was HRH-7551 which was being driven by Hanuman.
(3.) The Tribunal came to the finding that the accident in this case took place entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of Hanuman, the driver of the truck. This finding calls for no interference in appeal having regard to the evidence on record. Besides the testimony of the claimant Rajinder Singh and Jahangir Singh, who were examined as PW. 17 and PW. 18, there is also the testimony of PW. 14 Amar Chand, an eye witnesses to this occurrence. It was the consistent testimony of all this witnesses that the truck was coming from the opposite side at a very fast speed and it was being driven rashly with the result that as a matter of caution the claimant Rajinder Singh took the car on the left side of the road off the metalled portion thereof and stopped it in order to allow the truck to pass. It was while the car was standing in this position that the truck came and hit into it. The evidence further shows and this is also corroborated by the photographs taken soon after the occurrence, that, after hitting into the car the truck went and hit against a tree. PW. 14 Amar Chand who had not only witnessed the occurrence, but had also gone to the injured and the truck driver immediately after the accident had taken place, had further deposed that Hanuman, the truck driver smelt of liquir at that time. It is significant to note that the testimony of this witness with regard to the manner in which the accident took place was not challenged in cross-examination.;