N.P. Gupta, J. - (1.) - Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.
(2.) Assailing the impugned it is contended, firstly, that there is no evidence about the negligence of the car driver in happening of the accident. The learned Counsel read to me the statement of AW.2, Shivtar Singh, and contended, that he is not an eye-witness of the accident, rather he came to know of the accident, when he went on the 'bhog', and AW.1, the claimant, being father of the deceased, is also not an eye-witness, likewise the driver has been acquitted in the criminal case, and therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 is liable to be set aside.
(3.) I have considered the submission. The learned trial Court has noticed the fact, that the driver has been acquitted in the criminal case, and has then considered, that the defendant No. 1, Gurjeet Singh himself has admitted, that the accident occurred on account of the steering system of the car giving way, and that, if it is not in dispute, that the accident occurred on account of the car dashing against the tree, and since the accident was sought to be explained on the basis of the failure of the steering system, it was for the defendants to prove that the accident occurred on account of the failure of the steering system. With this, it has been found, that even the MTO report has not been produced, which, if produced, could have shown, as to whether the steering system was found to have failed, or not. With this, of course, the learned trial Court has believed the evidence of AW.2.;