- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 22.03.1995, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.85,280/- along with 12% interest to respondent Nos.1 to 4, the appellants, the driver and the owner of the offending truck, have approached this Court.
(2.) SHORTLY the facts of the case are that on 28.6.1985, Raj Kumar was going on a motorcycle along with his friend, Ramesh Dutt Sharma, from Vijay Nagar to Beawar. Near Sheopura Ghata a truck, driven by appellant No.1, driven in rash and negligent manner, came and collided with the motorcycle. Consequently, Raj Kumar expired. Since the claimants-respondents had lost the sole bread earner of the family, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to buttress their contention, they examined three witnesses and submitted certain documentary evidence. The appellants examined themselves as witnesses and also submitted few documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal passed the award, as aforementioned. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. J.K. Singhi, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently contended that there is no evidence that the accident had taken placed due to the negligence of the appellants. Secondly, the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the photographs, Exhibits-A/1 and A/2, in proper prospective. Thirdly, the Tribunal has erred in concluding that the fault was on the part of the appellants merely on the ground that the Motor Inspection Report (Ex-2) clearly shows that the truck did not suffer from any mechanical problems. According to the learned counsel, such a conclusion cannot be drawn from the above noted fact. Fourthly, the case of the claimants is falsified by the statement of Dr. S.C. Sharma. Fifthly, there is no evidence to show that the claimants were dependent upon the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was an unmarried son of their, who was studying and was also working as an accountant in M/s Sushil Cotton Company and was earning Rs.500/- per month. However, according to the learned counsel, there is no evidence to show that the parents and the brother and sister were financially dependent upon him. Sixthly, there is no evidence that after marriage, he would have spent his income on his parents. Seventhly, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were major by the time the case was decided. Yet, the compensation amount has been directed to be paid to them as well. Lastly, the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is too high as the Tribunal has awarded an interest @ 12% per annum. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Smt. Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [AIR 2001 SC 485]. On the other hand, Mr. K.N. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the respondents, has pleaded that a bare perusal of the photographs (Exhibits A/1 and A/2), clearly reveals that at the site of the accident, the rocks were not near the place where the accident had occurred. According to the photographs, the motorcycle is lying in front of the truck. Therefore, the defence taken by the appellants before the Tribunal that the accident had occurred as the motorcycle had dashed against the rocks is clearly untenable. Secondly, according to Motor Inspection Report (Ex-2), the motorcycle was badly crushed. This document clearly proves the fact that the truck had hit the motorcycle at a fast speed. Thirdly, Ayodhya Kumar (PW-1) clearly states in his testimony that the deceased was employed and was earning Rs.500/- per month. He further states that they were dependent upon the son and due to his sudden demise, they have suffered an economical loss. Therefore, the elements of dependency is clearly proven. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record, and examined the impugned award. The star witness of this case is Ramesh Dutt Sharma (PW-3), the friend, who had accompanied the deceased, Raj Kumar. In his testimony, he clearly reveals that while they were riding on a motorcycle, the truck, which was being driven rashly and negligently, came from behind and hit the motorcycle. He further states that Raj Kumar's head was crushed by the tires of the truck, while he himself fell at quite a distance. Therefore, he graphically described the accident. There is nothing in his cross-examination to show that he has been demolished as a witness. His testimony is further corroborated by the Motor Inspection Report (Ex-2). The said report clearly reveals that the motorcycle was badly crushed both from the front as well as from the back. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal that the motorcycle could not possibly be crushed if it collided just with the rocks is a valid conclusion.
(3.) WHILE appreciating the evidence of the eye-witness along with the evidence of the appellants, the learned Tribunal has given cogent reasons for disbelieving the testimony of the appellants. The learned Tribunal has clearly noted that Hari Singh, the driver of the truck, on the one hand, had claimed that the deceased was over-taking the truck from the left side, and yet on the other hand, had claimed that he could see the over-taking while looking into the rear-view mirror placed on the right side of the truck. The learned Tribunal is certainly justified in concluding that a person who overtakes from the left side, cannot be seen in the right side rear-view mirror of the truck. Moreover, he has noticed the fact that according to the appellants, the deceased was riding the motorcycle in drinking position. Yet, according to the Post-Mortem report, there is no evidence to show that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol. Furthermore, the fact that the truck did not suffer from any mechanical problems was a premise taken by the learned Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the accident was not caused due to mechanical failure of the truck. But, in fact, it was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant No.1. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by him cannot be faulted. Considering the evidence of the eye-witness, considering the mechanical reports of the motorcycle and the truck (both marked as Exhibit-2), considering the photographs, which speak volumes about the accident, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in concluding that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the appellant No.1. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel is unacceptable. The second contention of the learned counsel, that the testimony of Dr. S.C. Sharma belies the case of the claimants, is equally unacceptable. According to Dr. S.C. Sharma, in case the motorcycle were to be on the left side of the truck and if the truck decides to turn left side, there would be a collision with the vehicle. Furthermore, according to him, in case of such a collision, the injured person would fall on the left side. The learned Tribunal is justified in concluding that such an observation made by the Doctor is unacceptable. For, the way, in which the injured would fall, would depend on various factors, namely the speed and the direction of both the vehicles. Thus, the witness could not be laying down a universal principle that in every case of such a collision the injured is bound to fall on the left hand side. Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned counsel is equally without merit. ;