Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the Award dated 18.3.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby, the claim petition filed by the appellant, was dismissed. The appellant is Managing Director of Aayush Chemicals Limited, Ambala City.
(2.) AS per the case set up in the claim petition, on 5.10.2000, Sodium Silicate Liquid, worth Rs. 60,124/ - was got loaded by the appellant in Tanker No. HR -37 -2042 for transporting the same from Lalru to New Delhi. One truck HR -37 -5211, driven by respondent No. 1 was behind the Tanker and was being driven rashly and negligently. When the tanker reached near the bridge of Shahbad Markanda on GT Road, light from some other vehicle, dazzled the eyes of the driver of the tanker, who had to apply brakes suddenly. The truck coming behind the tanker could not be controlled by its driver and it struck against the tanker, as a result of which the outlet of the tanker was broken and the Sodium Silicate Liquid spilled on the road. The accident was alleged to be caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by Pawan Kumar -respondent No. 1. After the accident, respondent No. 1 ran away. The driver of the tanker Didar Singh got a DDR recorded in Police Station Shahbad on 8.10.2000. The claim petition was filed by the appellant claiming compensation for the damage caused due to the spilling of the Sodium Silicate Liquid due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 1. In order to prove its case, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and one Naveen Kumar was examined as PW2. In his evidence, the appellant has narrated the facts as set out in the claim petition. He stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 1 and after the accident the driver of the truck had run away. He admitted that no FIR was lodged regarding the accident, but only a DDR was lodged. He admitted that the accident had not taken place in his presence. PW2 Naveen Kumar had stated that on 5.10.2000, Sodium Silicate Liquid was loaded in the tanker. He reiterated the factum of the accident as stated in the petition. He stated that he was present at the time of the accident. He also stated that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. He further stated that he had accompanied the tanker after loading Sodium Silicate Liquid in the same. He admitted that neither the driver of the truck was arrested, nor the truck was taken into possession by the Police. He also stated that driver of the truck had run away after the accident leaving the truck on the spot.
(3.) THE Tribunal returned a finding that from the material on record, it could not be said that the accident in question was caused because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 1. For reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal referred to the contents of the DDR No. 28 dated 8.10.2002 (Exhibit PX), which was got recorded in Police Station Shahbad by Didar Singh, driver of the tanker. In the said DDR, it had been stated that when the tanker reached near the bridge of Shahbad Markanda, all of sudden light from some other vehicle dazzled his eyes, and he had to apply sudden brakes and the truck which was coming from behind struck it from back side and the liquid outlet was broken and the Sodium Silicate spilled on the road. In the DDR, it was stated that no one was at fault and the accident had occurred because of the fact that he had applied sudden brakes due to dazzling of his eyes by the light of another vehicle. The Tribunal further did not believe the version of PW2 Naveen Kumar and held that his presence at the time of the accident was doubtful. For this finding, the Tribunal based itself on the fact that in the DDR, it was no -where mentioned that PW2 Naveen Kumar was present in the tanker at the time of the accident. Also in his statement, the appellant (PW1) also did not state that Naveen Kumar was present in the tanker at the time of the accident. The Tribunal further held that PW1 had himself admitted that he himself was not present at the time of accident. Neither the driver Didar Singh, nor the cleaner of the tanker had been examined in support of the claim raised in the petition. The Tribunal further noted that in the DDR, no mention was made of any person being injured in the accident, but in the claim petition, the appellant has pleaded that the appellant was an injured person. For all these reasons, the Tribunal concluded that there is no material on record to substantiate the claim that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 1.;