K.KANNAN,J. - (1.) THE claim for compensation for injuries suffered in an accident was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not proved that the injuries were on account of an accident involving a motor vehicle. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before this Court.
(2.) THE essential ground on which the Tribunal dismissed the petition was that the petitioner had not given any complaint to the Police and there is no acceptable evidence that there was a nexus between the injuries and the motor accident. The petitioner had a cogent case to narrate in his oral evidence :- The petitioner was one of the Loadmen working in the truck bearing registration No. HR-05GA-0218. According to him he had got down from the truck just at the place where the truck was to be weighed on the weigh-bridge. After getting the empty truck weighed the petitioner got into truck again and at that time the driver started the truck suddenly, when the petitioner fell down and the truck ran over his right foot crushing his leg. According to him, the accident had arisen only on account of the negligent conduct of the driver in starting the vehicle even before petitioner had fully gotten into the truck. The petitioner stated in his evidence that he did not inform the Police, because the owner of the truck, who was his employer assured him to pay for the medical expenses and further that he had to work and he did not want to take the risk of giving a complaint against him. This portion of evidence is most natural one and one cannot expect the daily rated a loadman to lodge a complaint against the driver of his own employer, if only he wanted to continue in his employment. One Sham Sunder had been examined as PW-3, who was the person who accompanied the petitioner at the time when the scrap was being loaded into the truck and he has stated that the petitioner slipped under the front wheel of the offending truck and the petitioner got his injuries over his right knee. The accident in question took place only due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. He has also stated that he was taken into the hospital from there and but they did not report the matter to the Police. In the cross-examination it has been elicited as follows :- "I was sitting inside the cabin of the truck and the other 4 or 5 persons of the labourer (Sic) were sitting in the body of the truck, when Radhey Sham slipped, I was inside the cabin of the truck". The driver of the truck himself has been examined as RW-1. He has admitted the incident but only explains the accident as having arisen in the following words. "Before unloading the truck I had gone to check the weightage of the loaded truck but when I had gone at that time one Radhey Sham are also accompany me in the truck (Sic). After noting the weight of truck by Radhey Sham, he was also to sit in the truck and before sitting in the truck, Radhey Sham due impact of sudden and starting of the offending truck by me he fell down and his right leg went under the front wheel of the conductor side of the truck". (sic)
(3.) IT is no where suggested to the driver that the accident itself had not taken place. On the other hand, the specific suggestion is that the accident in question took place due to the sole negligence attributed to the driver. It is precisely on occasion like this where the owner shall bear vicarious liability and the Insurance Company will also become liable as an insurer. If the Tribunal had properly analyzed the case, it could not have dismissed the petition. It got carried away by the fact that since the accident had not been reported to the Police Station, the accident itself could not be true. Although an averment of collusion has made in the written statement of the insurer, it was not so suggested at the time of trial and especially at the time when the driver had been examined. I have already pointed out that the petitioner had a strong reason why he did not give a complaint to the Police namely that he was Loadmen in the vehicle and he believed that the owner would pay all his medical expenses. Under the circumstances I accept the evidence as credible and worthy of acceptance. I accordingly find that the accident arose only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver in starting the vehicle even before the Loadmen had got into the cabin and the petitioner is entitled to make the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.;