- (1.) THESE are three appeals by the legal representatives of three persons namely, Prem Prakash alias Prem Mohan, Arvind Kumar and Ashok Kumar, who died in an accident while they were on a motor cycle, which is alleged to have collided with a truck. It is alleged that the accident had happened on October 10, 1977 at 10. 00 AM near Mahuwa bus stand. The motorcycle was bearing No. DHT 2547 and was being driven by Arvind Kumar. The other three persons, who were sitting on this vehicle were Prem Prakash, Ashok Kumar and Anand Kumar. They were coming from Rajgarh to Alwar. The number of the Truck was RJA 2936 and was being driven by Ram Karan and owned by Ismail and Madanlal respondents. The truck was insured with M/s United India Fire and General Insurance Company. The motor cycle was insured with National Insurance Company. In the unfortunate accident only Anand Kumar serviced to narrate the tragic story of the accident.
(2.) A report was lodged in the Police and the police seized the vehicles, prepared the necessary documents and by the legal representatives of the three deceased i. e. Prem Prakash, Arvind Kumar and Ashok Kumar. Since all the claims related to one accident, the three claims were consolidated and one set of witnesses was examined by the Tribunal. A consolidated judgment was given on January 31, 1983 dismissing the claim petitions on the ground that no such accident with the truck happened and the claimants have failed to prove that there was any collision between the truck and the motor cycle. I would first deal with the question whether a collision between the truck and the motor cycle has been proved in this case or not, because the principal question regarding compensation centers round this important facet of the case. The Tribunal has entered into detailed appreciation of the evidence and rejected the evidence of the claimants on the ground that there are serious inconsistencies between the evidence and it is not worthy of reliance. The Tribunal has held that it is proved that Prem Prakash, Arvind Kumar and Ashok Kumar died after falling from motor cycle on October 10, 1977 and Anand Kumar was with them at that time on the motor cycle when they were going from Rajgarh to Alwar. It has been held that all the three died on the spot. The non-applicants have also not challenged this aspect of the case regarding deceased. The postmortem reports also confirm it. The claimants have examined Shambhu Dayal AW 7 and Anandkumar AW 10 to prove that there was a collision between the truck and the motor cycle. Shambhu Dayal was conductor of another Bus No. RJA 471 and was going from Alwar to Rani. He saw a motor cycle coming and the truck following it. The truck tried to take side, but at that crucial time the motor cycle and the truck dashed against each other as the motor cycle came in contact with the bumper of the bumper of the truck. The truck was being driven at a fast speed and it continued its journey after the accident. He saw that three out of the four died on the spot, but the fourth was surviving. He took Anand Kumar in his bus and went to Rajgarh. The witness had given the number of the truck as RJA 2936.
(3.) THE Tribunal has entered into a detailed discussion of his statement and I am inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Jain that the Tribunal forgot that the standard of proof in civil cases and more so in the accident claims tribunal is different from that of a criminal case. Mr. Jain is justified in his criticism that the Tribunal considered almost every sentence of the statement at various steps in order to discard it and then as if the claimants were required to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, held that the claimants have failed to prove their case. To illustrate, when the witness said that the fourth man was surviving and he was breathing, the Tribunal jumped to the conclusion that from this the witness meant that the fourth man was also seriously injured, but since he was not seriously injured, therefore, the witness was not present at the time of occurrence. THE Tribunal did not consider the important feature of the case that the eye witness Anand Kumar was taken in the bus by this witness to Rajgarh and this part of the case is corroborated. THE Tribunal on the contrary attached undue importance to minor discrepancies in statements of minor exaggerations, even if they are held to be so witness. Anandkumar stated that after the accident he tried to stop the truck. He for that purpose gave a call to the truck driver. THE Tribunal has made much capital out of this statement by comparing the statement of Shambhu Dayal, who has stated that Anand Kumar was lying. In my opinion, both can be correct and consistent. On the spur of the accident for a few moments when the blood is hot, a person falling from the motor cycle can re-act and call the truck driver to stop, though he may not be able to stand soon after the accident and lay down. It is very surprising that the Tribunal has tried to give undue importance to every feature of the case howsoever minor it may be. Another important point on which the Tribunal has discarded the evidence is that if the motor cycle touched the bumper of the truck, then there should be some marks, but Exs. 16 & 17 fail to show that there were any such marks. Shambhu Dayal, according to the Tribunal admitted that the motor cycle was on the road side and motor cycle tried to give side and then there was collision. The inconsistency of the Tribunal's finding lies on the fact that it earlier held that there was no collision and then it held that the truckwala took all precautions and crossed the vehicle i. e. motor cycle from the correct side. The Tribunal has also created confusion by comparing the sides. It then said that even if it is held that there was a collision from the road side, then there would be no mistake of the truck driver. It was forgotten by the Tribunal that Shambhu Dayal has stated that the vehicle was being driven at a very fast excessive speed and negligence lies in that when near a bus stand such an excessive speed is used by a truck. ;