M.L.Verma, J. - (1.) THE Appellant was posted as S.D.O. Drainage at Kaithal in the month of February 1968 and even earlier to that. It was his official duty to perform journey in Government owned jeep. Prior to 14th February, 1968, jeep No. PNT. 5164 had been allotted to him for the said purpose. The said jeep was, however, withdrawn from him on that day and he was allotted another jeep No. PNK. 2278 (hereinafter called the jeep) despite the fact that it had been condemned by the Condemnation Board on 8th December, 1967, for duty. Peshori Lal had been driver of jeep No. PNP 5164. Therefore, on withdrawal of the said jeep along with Peshori Lal, the Appellant had employed Raj Kumar on temporary basis as driver on the jeep on 17th February, 1968. The Appellant travelled in the jeep to Ambala on duty and he returned from there on that day. Since the battery of the jeep was weak and the dynamo did not work properly, he had to break the journey at Nilokheri, where the aforesaid defects were removed on 18th February, 1968. So on 19th February, 1968 the Appellant proceeded from Nilokheri in the jeep, which was driven by Raj Kumar, to Hodle. It was then raining and the vipers of the jeep were not in working order. When it (the jeep) had covered a distance of about six miles, it suddenly moved towards right side and struck against a tree on the side on which the Appellant was occupying the seat. As a result of the said accident, the Appellant was thrown out of the jeep and sustained fractures of both femur bones and patilla, besides some abrasions and injuries. He was immediately carried to Civil Hospital, Karnal, where he remained as indoor patient till 21st February, 1968. Next day, i.e. on 22nd February, 1968, he was removed to the P.G.I., Chandigarh where he received treatment as indoor patient by Dr. D.S. Grewal till 27th March, 1968. Once again, he had to take treatment in the P G.I., Chandigarh from 23rd May, 1968 to 31st June, 1968. Therefore, he made application to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter called the Tribunal), claiming Rs. 20,000/ - as damages for the injuries, etc., sustained by him, from the Respondent as well as Raj Kumar. The Respondent contested the claim of the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant was himself responsible for using the condemned jeep and for employing Raj Kumar as driver on it, Raj Kumar allowed the proceedings to go ex -parte against him. The case was tried on the following issues: 1. Whether on 19.2.1968 the Government jeep of the Drainage Department was not in proper working order and the claimant was forced to travel in the same?
(2.) WHETHER on account of the above fact the jeep met with an accident and the claimant received multiple injuries? In case of proof of issue No: 1 and 2, whether the claimant is entitled to compensation and if so, to what extent?
(3.) RELIEF . The Tribunal decided issue No. 1 and 2 against the Appellant and without recording any finding on issue No. 3 dismissed his claim. Dissatisfied with the said result, the Appellant came to this Court in appeal. Later on, at the instance of the Appellant the name of Raj Kumar was deleted from the array of Respondents. I have heard the arguments and examined the record. 2. The facts, that the Appellant was S.D.O. Drainage at Kaithal and had been using jeep No. PNT 5164 prior to 14th February, 1968, that the jeep was allotted to him in place of that jeep on 14th February, 1968, that the jeep had been condemned by the Condemnation Board on 8th December, 1967, that the Appellant had employed Raj Kumar on temporary basis, that the Appellant had travelled in the jeep which met with an accident on 19th February, 1968, and that the Appellant had suffered injuries, including fractures of both femur bones and patilla, are not disputed in order to claim compensation for the injuries suffered by the Appellant from the Respondent, it was essential for him (the Appellant) to show that the accident had taken place due to some mechanical defect in the jeep or due to the negligent driving of the jeep by Raj Kumar. Taking for the sake of argument that the representation of the Appellant that he had employed him (Raj Kumar) after obtaining necessary sanction from the Executive Engineer, is correct. The best evidence that could be available in that respect could be from Raj Kumar, who could state as to whether the jeep had developed any mechanical defect, on account of which it had gone out of his control and there by resulted in the accident. The Appellant did not produce him in evidence. The Appellant admitted that two persons, other than him and Raj Kumar, were travelling in the jeep at the time of accident, and one of them was his personal attendant and the other was connected with his official business. So it cannot be again said that these persons were not hostile to the Appellant. Rather, they could be interested in him. He did not examine any one of them in evidence and contented by making his own statement. No doubt, he stated that the accident was the result of some mechanical defect which had developed in the jeep. He being the claimant, is undoubtedly an interested witness. Therefore the rule of prudence requires strict scrutiny of his deposition and also some corroboration of the same before it can be acted upon. As indicated above, Raj Kumar was the best witness to depose about the circumstances under which the accident had taken place. Then there were two other persons, who were in no way biased against the Appellant, to corroborate his statement. But neither Raj Kumar nor any one of the said two persons had been examined by the Appellant for the reasons best known to him. So, no corroboration which could have been available to the deposition of the Appellant, was brought on record by him. The ordinary presumption, therefore, is that they, had any one of them been produced, would not have given evidence favourable to the Appellant. True the Appellant, when he made statement on 6th January, 1970, i.e. two years after the accident, maintained that the accident was due to some mechanical defect which had developed in the jeep, but he did not state the circumstances which made him to conclude that the accident was due to any such mechanical defect in the jeep. The Appellant admitted during cross -examination that Mr. B.R. Chopra, Sub -Divisional Officer, conducted enquiry into the matter and he recorded his statement two month after the accident and that he (the Appellant) had then stated that he could not state as to whether the jeep went out of control due to inefficient driving, skidding or due to mechanical control. So at that time, i.e., even after two months of the accident, the Appellant did not know about the exact cause of the accident. He changed his position when he made the claim application of 19th April, 1968, and stated in para 24 of that application that the accident was so sudden that he could not say if the accident caused alone due to some defect in steering wheel or due to rash and negligent driving by Raj Kumar, it is, thus clear from his earlier statement, which was made before Mr. B.R. Chopra, S.D.O. that the accident, could be the result of skiding of the jeep' mechanical defect, or inefficient driving by Raj Kumar, and that it was raining when the jeep had met with the accident. The circumstance that it was raining at that time reads consistent with the statement of the Appellant that the accident could be due to skidding of the jeep. It is, thus, manifest that the Appellant made three different statements at three stages and no corroboration of his deposition, made before the Tribunal, is available. Therefore, his solitary statement could not be accepted for finding that the accident was due to some mechanical defect, which had developed in the jeep. The possibility of the accident having taken place due to skiding on account of rain without any negligence on the part of Raj Kumar or mechanical defect in the jeep, cannot be ruled out. 3. The statement of Kailash Nath Sarma (P.W. 1) does not render assistance to any side, because he had inspected the jeep on 2nd April, 1968, i.e. one month and about 12 days after the accident. He found cross -am of the steering wheel of the jeep broken but he could not state as to whether the said cross -am had broken before the accident or on account of the impact which the jeep had against the tree. so, the Appellant cannot seek any help from his statement. 4. It follows that the Tribunal was not wrong in coming to the conclusion that the Appellant had failed to prove by satisfactory or reliable evidence that the accident had occurred due to the mechanical defect in the jeep or due to the rash and negligent driving of the same by Raj Kumar the jeep was condemned as back as on 8th December, 1967. The jeep PNT 5164 had been withdrawn from him and he was given the jeep on 14th February, 1968. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to accept the statement of the Appellant that he did not know even within two months that the jeep had been a condemned one. He, in the circumstances of the case ought to have known that the jeep was condemned one when he used it. I, therefore, find that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issues No. 1 and 2 are correct and the same do not suffer from any infirmity. In view of the said findings, recorded on issues No. 1 and 2 against the Appellant he cannot have any luck. So, the appeal is bereft of any merit and fails. Consequently, I maintain the impugned order of the Tribunal and dismiss this appeal, but in the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. ;