AJAY TEWARI, J. - (1.) BOTH these appeals bearing FAO Nos. 536 and 1240 of 1999 have been filed against the dismissal of the claim petition arising out of the common award dated 31.10.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonipat and are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from FAO No.536 of 1999.
(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that on 18.06.1995 Raj Singh (deceased) husband of claimant alongwith Sukhbir Singh (deceased) and others were going from Karnal to Delhi in a Maruti Car No.DL -8CA -1606 and when they reached one or two miles beyond Murthal their car struck against a stationery Swaraj Mazda vehicle No.HNW -5594 which was parked in the middle of the road being out of order. The accident took place at about 6 A.M. on G.T. Road due to the negligent parking of the stationery vehicle by the driver of vehicle No.HNW -5594 Balbir Singh respondent No.1 causing multiple injuries to the occupier of the car No.DL -8CA -1606 and caused the death of Raj Singh and Sukhbir Singh. The Tribunal held the fact that since one eye witness Master Giri, was not examined, an adverse inference could be taken against the appellants. With regard to the eye -witness PW3 Naresh Kumar the Tribunal held that his testimony did not show that there was any negligence on the part of the truck owner. The Tribunal further held that it was neither pleaded as to who was the driver of the car nor was the owner/driver/insurer of the car impleaded as parties. Consequently there was no negligence of the truck owner of the Swaraj Mazda No.HNW -5594 and the claim petition was dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has argued that Tribunal has taken an unduly pedantic view of the testimony. In the first place, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the testimony of PW3 where he had stated that Master Giri had also died. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that in this situation the adverse inference drawn against the appellants was completely misplaced. The second argument is that PW3 Naresh Kumar firstly deposed that the truck was wrongly parked and then stated that the truck was parked on the G.T. Road and the traffic was smooth at that time. It is on this basis of this assertion that the conjectural finding has been given by the Tribunal that sometimes even if the vehicle is parked wrongly it may not impede the traffic especially at the time when the accident took place i.e. at 6.00 A.M.;