HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by appellant -Baldev Singh against the award dated 02.03.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the appellant has been held liable to make the payment of compensation totaling Rs. 1 lac to the claimant.
(2.) FACTS in brief as set out in the claim petition were that on 24.10.2003 deceased Gurdevi along with her daughter -in -law Premi Devi was travelling in a Three - wheeler to reach her village after doing some Diwali shopping. At about 2:30/3:00 pm their three -wheeler reached at Village Chanakheri near Mazar of Peer ahead of crossing then a tractor trolley bearing registration No. HR - 41A/7404 driven by the appellant in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and struck against three -wheeler. As a result of the impact Gurdevi fell down on the road and struck against the trolley and due to impact she received serious injuries. She was taken to Saraswati Mission Hospital, Pehowa, then to Patiala and later referred to PGI Chandigarh where she died on 27.10.2003. In support of their claim, the claimants had examined driver of the three -wheeler Pawan Kumar as PW -1 and Agrej Singh one of the claimants as PW -2. Photocopy of post mortem report and Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. were also produced in evidence . The Tribunal did not accept the version of accident given by PW -1 -Pawan Kumar driver of the three -wheeler primarily on the ground that the FIR regarding the accident was registered after four days of the accident on the statement of Prema Devi, who is daughter -in -law of the deceased and was stated to be present with the deceased at the time of accident in the three -wheeler. In the FIR she did not disclose the registration number of the Tractor. She had only mentioned that the offending tractor was "Old Ford' whereas the Tribunal noted that on perusal of the registration certificate of the tractor No. HR41 -A/7404 the said tractor was found to be new one and it was also 'Farm Trac 60',. The Tribunal concluded that the difference in the make and model of the tractor HR41 -A/7404 from the tractor mentioned in the statement by Premi Devi creates a suspicion that the Tractor No. HR41 -A/7404 had been introduced just to extract the compensation in an illegal manner. The Tribunal inferred collusion between the claimants, owner and driver of the Tractor No. HR41 -A/7404 from their failure to step in the witness box. The Tribunal also drew adverse inference from the fact that the driver of the three -wheeler did not get the FIR registered immediately after the accident. Similarly adverse inference was also drawn from the non examination of Prema Devi eye -witness by the claimants. The Tribunal concluded that the involvement of Tractor No. HR41 -A/7404 is not proved but the name of the appellant had found mention in the FIR as driver of the tractor. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had caused the accident resulting in death of Gurdevi and he was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Counsel for the appellant has seriously disputed the finding of the Tribunal. He has stated that the delay in lodging the FIR should be no ground to discard the version in the FIR because the first priority of the claimants were to look after the treatment of the injured who later on died. It was also submitted that the Tribunal itself has accepted that the testimony of PW -2 - Agrej Singh regarding the accident has remained unrebutted and hence, there was no reason not to rely on the said testimony. He has further submitted that no adverse inference is liable to be drawn from the non - examination of Premi Devi. He has further stated that the Tribunal has gone wrong in concluding that merely because in the FIR, the description of the tractor is given as an 'Old Ford' whereas infact the Tractor No. HR41 -A/7404 was of another make, namely, Farm Trac 60'and was not old but newly purchased, the involvement of tractor No. HR41 - A/7404 should be viewed with suspicion. There appears to be merit in the contentions of counsel for the appellant.
(3.) I have carefully gone through the statement of PW -1 Pawan Kumar, who was an eye -witness and driver of the three wheeler in which deceased was travelling and against which the tractor had struck resulting in injuries to the deceased who later died. In his statement, he has clearly stated that on 24.10.2003, he was going in his three - wheeler from Pehowa to Talheri and when he reached near village Urnai ahead of chowk near Mazar of a Peer, passengers were alighting from the three -wheeler and the tractor bearing Registration No. HR41 -A/7404 came from the opposite side and struck against right front wheel of three -wheeler as result of which Gurdevi, who was an occupant of the three -wheeler fell on the road in front of the tractor and received multiple injuries. He was with the deceased when she was taken to Mission Hospital, Pehowa.;