- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 10.08.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana (Sikar) (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal"), the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") has approached this Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the claimant Neeraj had filed a claim petition through his father as he was minor before the learned Tribunal stating therein that on 19.04.2006, at about 7:30 PM, when he was going to his house in a camel cart, near Pipli Bus-Stand, a roadways bus, bearing registration No. RJ-18-P-2190, being driven rashly and negligently, hit the back of camel cart. Due to the said accident, the claimant suffered simple and grievous injuries. THE appellant and respondent No.2 filed their replies, and denied the avements made by the claimant in the claim petition. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation amount of Rs.1,89,530/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the claimant. Being aggrieved with the said award, the appellant-Corporation has approached this Court. Mr. S.C. Mittal, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the learned Tribunal has erroneously disbelieved the defence of the Corporation. According to him, the defence of the Corporation was that while the bus, registered as RJ-18-P-2190, was plying on the road, suddenly a trolla came from the opposite direction and collided with the bus. Due to the said collusion, the bus went out of control. The camel cart which was in front of the bus dashed into the bus. It is due to this collusion that the injured, Sugnaram, respondent No.2, suffered many injuries. Hence, according to the Corporation, the negligence is not that of the bus driver, but, in fact, the negligence is of driver of the trolla. Secondly, although three other persons were said to be travelling in the said camel cart, yet they have not been produced as witnesses. Hence, material witnesses have been withheld by the claimant. Thirdly, claimant is a minor who had filed the claim petition through his father. Since he is minor, the learned Tribunal was duty bound to first ascertain whether the claimant could understand the complexity of the judicial proceedings in which he had come to participate. However, the same has not been done. The learned Tribunal has relied upon the testimony of the claimant and has passed the award in his favour. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has violated Section 118 of the Evidence Act. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned award. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal has noticed the defence placed by the Corporation. In para 11 of the award, it has meticulously discussed not only the testimony of the claimant, but has also discussed the motor inspection report of the bus. According to the learned Tribunal, the motor inspection report clearly reveals that the bumper of the bus had been damaged, the net in front of the radiator had equally been damaged, both the mirrors, head light and safety light were equally broken. Thus the learned Tribunal is justified in concluding that the bus had collided with the back of the camel cart. It is not the case of the Corporation that the camel cart had turned around and then collided with the bus. Thus, the learned Tribunal was justified in disbelieving the defence pleaded by the Corporation. It is, indeed, tried to state that what is material in a trial is not the number of witnesses, but the quality of the witnesses which are produced. Merely because, three other witnesses have not been produced would not dilute the veracity of the claimant's testimony, specially, when the evidence of claimant has not been demolished in the cross-examination. Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned counsel with regard to withholding of the material witnesses is unacceptable.
(3.) IT is equally settled principle of law that the rigours of Evidence Act do not apply to a proceeding before the learned Tribunal. Even if the learned Tribunal has not posed certain questions to the claimant, therefore, the understanding of the claimant, the veracity of the testimony of the claimant does not become doubtful. Since the claimant has systematically and minutely described the accident, since the claimant has withstood the onslaught of the cross-examination, there is no reason to believe that the claimant could not understand the complexity of the questions or intercacies of the judicial proceedings. Hence, this appeal is devoid of merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.;