M.M.Kumar, J. - (1.) This appeal filed under Section 100 D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity 'the 1939 Act') is directed against the award dated 30.10.1987 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for brevity 'the Tribunal"). The widow of one Jaibir singh who is stated to have died in a vehicle accident on 16.7.1985 alongwith four minor children had made the claim. The accident had occurred on 16.7.1985. Shri Jaibir Singh, deceased was aged a bout 31 years and was driving truck no. HRC 8253 alongwith 45 other workers. The accident had occurred on 16.7.1985 when they were going to Hasanpur near village Jharsaintli on the main Delhi- Mathura road. It has been alleged that driver- respondent no.1 Ravinder Kumar had driven the truck rashly and negligent at a very high speed. As a result the truck turned turtle. The driver jumped out and was able to save himself and all the 45-46 workers traveling in the truck received injuries whereas Jaibir Singh, deceased had received fatal injuries. He was declared dead at the Civil Hospital, Ballabagarh where he was removed on the same day.
(2.) On the crucial issue as to whether the accident was caused by Driverrespondent no.1 on account of his rash and negligent driving, the Tribunal found that the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Ravinder Kumarrespondent could not be proved. Accordingly, the issue was decided against the claimant- appellants. It has however, been held under issue no.2 that the claimantappellants who are the legal heirs of deceased Rajbir Singh and under issue no.3, the claimant- appellants have been granted the relief under Section 92-A of the Act on account of the death of Jaibir Singh. The Tribunal has further held that the delay in filing the claim petition deserved to be condoned as Smt. Raj Kumari has filed an affidavit explaining the delay for filing the petition on 10.10.1986 which is after a period of more than six months whereas the accident had taken place on 16.7.1985. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in favour of the claimant- appellants against the respondents jointly and severely with costs alongwith interest @ 12 percent p.a. w.e.f. The date of filing of the application i.e. 10.10.1986.
(3.) The analysis of the evidence by rejecting the version given by the various witnesses has been made by the Tribunal in paras 5,6,7 and 8 which reads as under: "5. Dr. Suman Bishnoi, PW 1 has proved the post mortem report Ex.P.1. She conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jaibir singh on 17.7.1985. In her opinion, death was due to shock and hemorrhage and injuries to vital organs. In her cross-examination, she has stated that there was no crush injury on the body of the deceased. 6. Smt. Raj Kumari, one of the petitioners, came in the witness box as PW 2. She has stated that her husband died in a road accident. She is not an eye witness to the accident. 7. Murari Lal PW 3 has stated that Jaibir Singh died in a road accident on 16.7.1985 that he was also present inside the truck at the time of accident but he does not know as to how the truck met with an accident . Further, that they had boarded the truck from the gate of the factory; that there were 40/50 workers inside the truck and that they had gone without the consent of the management. He has further stated that he could not tell the speed of the truck when it met with an accident nor does he know the name of the driver. The evidence of this witness is of no help to the petitioners nor does it prove the alleged rash or negligent driving on the part of respondent no.1. This witness does not even know the name of the driver. He has frankly stated that he does not know as to how the truck met with an accident. He could not even tell the speed of the truck when it met with an accident. His evidence is thus of no help to the petitioners. 8. Hirdey Narain PW 4 is also stated to be traveling in the same truck. It is the case of the petitioners that this witness got a case registered against the driver of the truck with the police station, City Ballabgarh. But the, evidence of this witness does not help the petitioners in any manner. While stating that he was also sitting in the truck, he has added that he did not know as to who got the case registered about the accident. He goes no to say that he did not make any statement to the police; that he did not know whether any other occupant of the truck was joined in the investigation by the police or not that the police had come there of its own; that the police did not talk to him and that he remained unconscious for about half an hour. He has again stated that he did not know as to how the accident took place. He could not say as to what was the speed of the truck when it met with an accident. This witness is said to be complainant but then his evidence does not help the petitioners in any manner. His evidence does not correct the respondent no.1 with the alleged rash or negligent driving of the truck at the time of accident. In this manner, the first information report Ex.P.2 has not been proved on record. The signatory to the first information report; namely Hirdey Narain having resiled, the alleged rash or negligent driving on the part of Ravinder Kumar respondent is not proved on the record.";