Thandi Ram and Others vs Mangu Ram and Others

N.C. Jain, J.—The petitioners, Thandi Ram and Smt. Champa Devi the parents of the deceased Krishan Singh, Smt. Krishna Devi widow of the deceased and two minor sons of the deceased named Manoj and Lachhman, filed an application giving rise to the filing of the present petition claiming compensation for the death of the deceased Krishan Singh. It has been averred in the petition that Krishan Singh was run over by a truck bearing No. HRH 6424 which was owned by Manga Ram, respondent No. 1 and driven by Kanwar Bhan, respondent No. 2. It was the case of the petitioners that the offending truck was got insured with the insurance company, respondent No. 3 by Ram Kumar, respondent No. 4 who was the registered owner of the offending truck on the date of the accident Krishan Singh, according to the claimants, was earning Rs. 500/- per month on date of the accident. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- was claimed as compensation by the petitioners from respondents. Respondents No. 1 and 2 denied in their written statement that truck No. HRH 6424 (hereinafter referred to as ''the offending truck), was involved in the accident. It was further their plea that the truck was got insured by Ram Kumar respondent No. 4 with respondent No. 3 and that he hold sold the same to respondent No. 1 who had become its owner. The right of the claimants to claim compensation was rejected by averring that the death of Krishan Singh was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. Respondent No. 3 in its separate written statement pleaded that insurance policy in respect of the offending truck was issued in the name of Ram Kumar for the year from 8- 5-1978 to 7-5-1979, but since the truck was sold by Ram Kumar before date of accident the company was not liable. It was further pleaded by respondent No. 3 that the offending truck was not involved in the accident and that the claim against the Insurance company was barred. Respondent No. 4 was proceeded against ex parte as he has chosen not to appear despite service. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-

Whether Krishan Singh died as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck No. HRH 6424 by respondent No. 2 on 1-7-1978 on Delhi-Jaipur National Highway in the area of village Narsingpur ?

Whether petitioners are the LRs. of deceased Krishan Singh as alleged ?

Whether truck No. HRH 6414 was insured with respondent No. 3 on the date of accident ? If so, to what effect ?

Whether petition against respondent No. 3 is within limitation ?

What amount, if any, petitioners are entitled to recover as compensation on account of death of Krishan Singh and against whom ?

Whether truck No. HRH 6424 was transferred by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 1, as alleged if so to what effect ?

Relief :

Issue No. I was decided against the petition holding that Krishan Singh did not die as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck and that it was not proved that it was the offending truck which was involved in the accident. Under issue No. 2 the petitioners were held to be legal representatives. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 were decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents, whereas under issue No. 6 it was found that the truck was transferred in favour of Kanwar Bhan only on 11- 4-1979 and that at the time of accident the registered owner of the offending truck was Ram Kumar (some where his name has been mentioned as Ram Kanwar). Under issue No. 5 it was held that the petitioners were entitled to an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- but since the finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal went against claimants under issue No. 1, they were found not entitled to the grant of any compensation what-soever.

The petitioners feeling aggrieved against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, have come up in appeal before this Court.

This having been determined that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, the only question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether Krishan Singh died as result of rash and negligent driving of truck No. HRH 6424. With the help of the counsel for the parties I have gone through the evidence minutely and I am of the considered view that the claimants have been able to make out that it was the offending truck which was involved in the accident. PW2 Brahm has stated that about 13/14 months ago, he was going to his village from Gurgaon in the night hours and that he had seen Krishan Singh going on a cycle from Gurgaon to his village side. When Krishan Singh reached near village Narshinghpur, a truck came from the opposite direction and struck Krishan Singh. This witness was at a distance at about 100 meters from the place of accident. This witness further stated that Surja and 4-5 persons were present near the spot and they were saying that Krishan Singh had been run over under the front right wheel of the offending truck The offending truck was loaded with wood. Surja whose name has been mentioned by this witness, has stepped into the witness box as PW5 and stated that the offending truck was loaded with wood. Surja, PW5 corroborates the statement of PW2 Brahm. PW6 Mehar Chand another eye witness has stated that the offending truck was loaded with wood. He has further stated that the ''Dala'' of the offending truck was somewhat broken Another important witness in the case is AST Bhup Singh, who appeared in the witness box as PW8 and deposed that he working as ASI, Police Station, Gurgaon and he was on patrol duty in the area of village Jslampur on the intervening night 1/2-7-1978 and that one Sheo Ram met him near village Islampur and made a statement Exhibit-P1, He has stated that the truck bearing No. HRH-6424 had already been secured by the complainant and his companions near village Badhshahpur. He went to the aforesaid truck vide recovery memo Exhibit-P2. The statement of ASI Bhup Singh, PW8, is quite important in my view because it corroborates statement of eye witnesses on two points. In the first instance, he has stated that the truck was loaded with wooden logs and secondly it has been stated that the rear portion of the body of the truck was found in a damaged condition, as has been observed earlier. PW6 Mehar Chand also deposed that Dala of the truck was somewhat broken. This Court is further prepared to give credence to the conduct of the driver of the truck Kanwar Bhan, who was found by the ASI in a frightened condition. It does happen that when a person whose vehicle meets with an accident whether the accident has taken place due to his own fault or not does feel frightened. As has been decribed by ASI Bhup Singh P. W. 8, this provides corroboration to the story of the eye-witness. The three eye-witnesses of the accident can not be disbelieved simply because they did not give the number of the truck The accident took place place on 1-7-1978 in the night at about 10-00 P. M. and the witnesses might not have read the number of the truck, In fact the witness appeared to be quite truthful, otherwise they could have told a lie that they had seen the number of the truck, For all these reasons, this court is inclined to record a finding that the offending truck HPH-6424 was involved in the accident and the moment this finding is recorded, the statements of the eye-witnesses that the truck was being driven at a high speed will have to be believed. Consequently the finding of the Tribunal under issue No. 1 is reversed.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. The petitioners are held entitled to the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p. a. from the date of the application. Out of the amount of compensation, the widow alone would be entitled to half of the amount and the rest of the amount shall be shared equally by other claimants. If Manoj and Lachhman the sons of the deceased are still minors, the amount which has fallen in their share would be got deposited in a fixed deposit, which they would be entitled to withdraw on their attaining majority.