ANITA CHAUDHRY, J. - (1.) THE driver and owner of the tractor are disputing their liability to pay the compensation on the ground that an eyewitness namely Pawan Kumar was a crucial witness who had not been examined by the claimants and secondly that the driver of the motorcycle did not have a driving licence, hence, the claim could not be lodged. Two separate claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal
(2.) WHICH were subsequently consolidated relating to the accident which occurred on 04.05.2007. Deepak (since deceased) and Raj Kumar after bearing finishing their work were returning on the motorcycle registration no.HR -21B -8648 to their village and were proceeding towards Hansi. Pawan Kumar, brother of Raj Kumar was following them on another motorcycle. They were 1 kilometer away from Hansi when a tractor driven by Ram Diya came and hit the motorcycle being driven by Raj Kumar. Deepak fell on the road and was run -over by the tractor. Raj Tribunal Kumar also sustained grevious injuries. The awarded Rs.32,000/ - as compensation to Raj Kumar for the injuries suffered by him whereas a sum of Rs.1,70,000/ - was allowed for the death of Deepak vide its award dated 30.11.2009. The contention raised on behalf of the driver and owner was that the claimants had examined only Raj Kumar but they had failed to examine Pawan Kumar who was an independent witness and therefore, the Tribunal should not have relied upon the solitary statement of Raj Kumar and the only material on the record was the FIR which would not prove the negligence. The second contention raised by them is that Raj Kumar did not have a licence to drive the motorcycle and he had made certain admissions and they should be discharged of their liabilities.
(3.) THE contention on the other hand was that the statement of injured eyewitness is always on a higher pedestal and Pawan Kumar was none else but the real brother of Raj Kumar who would have supported the statement of Raj Kumar and it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity which matters. It was urged that Raj Kumar could not produce his driving license and that would not mean that he had no licence and the plea would not be available and had the vehicle been insured, the plea was available to the insurance company to avoid their liability. It was urged that no -one gets a licence to trample another person only because the victim did not have a licence and here we are concerned with the negligence of the driver who had caused the accident.;