HEMANT GUPTA,J - (1.) THE challenge in the present appeal is to the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 2.4.1986 whereby the claim petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was dismissed on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Chander Bhan, i.e. driver of the offending Tractor.
(2.) IT is the case of the claimant-appellants that on 11.12.1984, Gopal Dass, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, was coming from the side of Gandhi Adarsh College on his Motor-cycle bearing registration No. HYK-8971 and was going towards Samalkha on his left side at a moderate speed. From the other side, respondent No. 1 came driving his Tractor from Samalkha side at a high speed and was going towards village Chamrara. The said Tractor was being driven rashly and negligently. The Tractor struck against the Motor-cycle of Gopal Dass and dragged him to some distance. Gopal Dass received injuries and succumbed to his injuries on 12.12.1984. The claimants are his widow, parents, brothers, sister and a minor son of the deceased. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 110-A of the Act alleging therein that the deceased was employed as Octroi Clerk with Municipal Committee, Samalkha and was earning Rs. 721/- per month as salary. Besides this, the deceased was earning Rs. 1500/- per month from the sale of milk. The respondents have denied the factum of accident. On behalf of the appellants, none of the eye witnesses was examined, although they have summoned Gobind Ram, author of the FIR. On the other hand, the respondents have examined driver of the Tractor Chander Bhan as RW-1, his brother Basti Ram as RW-2 and Mahabir as RW-3. The claimants have produced a copy of the Challan under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure including the FIR, as Exhibit P-2 and site plan Exhibit P-1. On the other hand, the witnesses of the respondents have taken a stand that in fact, they took the injured to the hospital and thus, the accident is not proved to have been caused with the Tractor of the respondent.
(3.) THE learned Tribunal returned a finding that the appellants have failed to prove that the accident was caused by the driver of the Tractor and thus, it cannot be held that respondent No. 1 was negligent in driving the Tractor.;