VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS appeal arises out of an order dated 3.6.1996 pased by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short the "Tribunal") vide which the claim petition flied by the claimants was dismissed.
(2.) THE brief leading to the filing of the claim before the Tribunal were that on 14th of August, 1993 at about 9.30 p.m. Giana Ram - a rickshaw puller was coming from Indri to Ladwa on his rickshaw. A truck bearing registration No. HNE 2180 alleged to be driven by Sukhwinder Singh, respondent No. 1, in rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the rickshaw near Bus Stand of Village Andhgarh. Due to the impact of the accident, Giana Ram fell down on the road and the truck ran over him, as a result of which he died on the spot. The rickshaw was also badly damaged. DDR No. 28 dated 15.8.1993 was lodged at Police Station, Indri, after two days. It was the case of the claimants that after about two days Sat Pal and Raj Kumar told the brother of the deceased that at the time of the accident they were coming on their cycles from Indri. They noticed truck No. HNE 2180 being driven by respondent No. 1 which came from the side of Indri, and had hit against the rickshaw from the back side. On these allegations the compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs was claimed. The claim was contested by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. owner and driver of the offending truck on the ground that the claim petition was not maintainable and claimants had no locus standi to file the same. It was also the case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that no accident had taken place with the truck in question and the object of the claim petition was to extract money from them. The allegations on merits were also denied. The case set up by respondent No. 1 was that on 13th and 14th of August, 1993 the truck in question remained in truck union at Yamuna Nagar and was at call list No. 42 and 32 respectively. The respondent No. 3 i.e. insurance company filed a separate written statement by raising a preliminary objection that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving licence and also the claim petition was bad for mis- joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- "1. Whether the accident in question was result of rash and negligent driving of truck No. HNE 2180 by respondent No. 1 as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether Giana Ram died of the injuries received by him in the said accident, if so, it effect ? OPP 3. To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from whom ? OPP 4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable ? OPR 5. Whether the claimants have no cause of action ? OPR 6. Whether the vehicle was being driven by its driver without holding valid driving licence, if so, its effect ? OPR 7. Whether the claim petition is bad for misjoinder of parties ? OPR 8. Relief." The claimants in support of their claim produced Ram Lal, PW-1, Raj Kumar, PW-2, Jagdish Chand, PW-3 and closed their evidence. They also produced documentary evidence in support of their contention. On the other hand, no evidence was led by the respondents. The insurance company tendered in evidence the insurance policy and closed its evidence.
(3.) THE learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1 against the claimants by holding as under :- "I have heard both the counsel and have perused the record. The story put forth by the claimants does not sound to reasoning. PW-2 who has been examined as eye witness, has shown unnatural conduct. His version that the truck HNE 2180 coming from behind at high speed hit rickshaw puller, caused it (sic) and stopped at a distance of 4 or 5' is improbable. Both the versions are contrary to each other. Had the truck been rash and at high speed it could not have stopped after covering distance of 4 or 5' particularly when the truck is loaded. Secondly, it is again unnatural conduct of the witness that the witness just noticed the truck number without caring for injured and went ahead to his house. The matter does not end there. The manner in which the truck in question is being involved is again highly improbable. PW-2 says that after 2 or 3 days of the accident while they were taking tea at tea shop some persons were discussing about the accident when they disclosed number of the truck which caused accident to Ram Lal whom they knew earlier. Had that been true there was no difficulty for them to disclose accident on the same day as real brother of Ram Lal has died whom they knew earlier. This witness who was accompanied by one Sat Pal they did not try to catch the driver nor they informed about the accident to any of their family members PW-1 Ram had gone ahead of them. He has deposed that on getting information at about 3 or 4 a.m. he reached the spot at about 5 a.m. and found his brother lying dead and truck being parked there. He has also deposed that the police was present at the spot. At the same time he has deposed that police told that the truck which caused the accident had run away from the spot. He has further deposed that he had gone to Ladwa where he was taking tea where two boys informed him that they had seen truck which caused the accident, whereupon matter was reported to the police. The DDR with regard to the accident has been lodged by one Mohd. Anur. He has not mentioned anything in his statement that so truck caused the accident not only that the claimants have mentioned number of DDR in the claim petition, however, they have not examined Mohd. Anur who is stated to have witnessed the accident and lodged DDR to identify the truck. He was best person who could at least identify the truck even though he has not recorded number of the truck. Ram Lal deposed that he moved applications Ex. P1 to P4 to the S.P., Home Minister and Chief Minister. None of these applications have been sent through registered post and are only through U.P.C. The record has not been summoned from concerned authorities having sent these applications. Therefore, the applications cannot be taken as authenticated proof of their have been sent. Merely because the truck in question happened to enter municipal limit of Ladwa on 15.8.1993 the liability cannot be fastened. The accident is stated to have been caused on 14.8.1993 at 9.30 p.m. PW1 Ram Lal real brother of the deceased has stated that truck was parked by the side of the deceased when he reached the post at 5 a.m. While truck No. HNE 2180 as per record of Octroi Moharrir entered municipal limit at 4.45 a.m. How could be truck be at the site as well as the barrier of municipal limits. Many persons might have collected as usually happens at the place of accident and none has been examined to corroborate that the truck which caused the accident was at the spot. Under the circumstances the claimants have failed to connect that respondent No. 1 while driving truck No. HNE 2180 caused the accident. issue No. 1 decided against the claimants and in favour of respondents." ;