Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 466 (UTT)

Smt. Tasleeman Begum v. Sri Ataulla Khan

2006-08-22

J.C.S.RAWAT, RAJEEV GUPTA

body2006
Judgement J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. The first appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21-10-2002 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge (hereinafter referred as Tribunal'), Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 236 / 1996 Smt. Tasleeman Begum Vs. SriAtaulia Khan, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by Smt. Tasleeman Bagum-appellant (the wife of deceased) alleging therein that on 27.05.1995 while her husband Basi-ud-din (deceased) was going on main road near the gate of Mandi Samiti, Pilibhit Sitarganj road, the offending truck No. URP-5902 came from behind and hit the deceased and due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving by its driver. It was further alleged the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of incident and he was a carpenter. He was earning Rs. 4000/- pm. Thus, the claimant-appellant had filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 15,73,000/-. 3. The respondent filed his written statement and contested the case. The respondent-Ataulla Khan, who was the owner of the offending truck, had filed his written statement in which he denied the allegations made in the claim petition. He had also denied that his truck No. URP 5902 had hit the deceased and his truck was involved in the said accident. He further alleged that he was not liable to pay the compensation. 4. The Tribunal framed necessary issues in the case. In support of the case, the claimant had adduced the evidence of herself as PW1. The claimant had also adduced the evidence of Babu as PW2, who was said to be the eye-witness of the accident. PW2 had lodged the report at the police station. The defence had adduced the evidence of Sarfaraz Khan DW 1, Ataulla Khan DW 2 and Rais Ahmad DW3. 5. The Tribunal on the basis of the appraisal of the evidence of the parties had rejected the claim petition filed by the claimant. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant had miserably failed to prove that the offending truck was involved in the accident in which the deceased sustained the injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 5. The Tribunal on the basis of the appraisal of the evidence of the parties had rejected the claim petition filed by the claimant. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant had miserably failed to prove that the offending truck was involved in the accident in which the deceased sustained the injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The learned Tribunal had further held that the evidence of PW2 Babu, who was said to be the eyewitness of the accident, was not credible and cogent on the ground that he appeared in the evidence before an opportunity to explain the said discrepancy and inconsistency. The learned Tribunal was not justified to disbelieve the testimony of PW2 Babu without affording him an opportunity to explain his previous discrepant and inconsistent statement. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of considered opinion that the matter should be sent back to the Tribunal to decide it afresh in light of the observations made above. The Tribunal shall also recall PW2-Babu and put him to the cross examination by the respondent as to enable him to put discrepancy and inconsistency as pointed out in his previous statement recorded before the criminal court. In case the respondent fails to put the inconsistency and discrepancy, the Tribunal will bear the liability to put the discrepancy and inconsistency to the witness and seek his explanation in the evidence. The parties will be at liberty to adduce their evidence in respect of their case. It is made clear that the claimant will be at liberty to cross examine the witness of the respondent if she desires at the time of evidence. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment & order dated 21.10.2002 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded with the direction to dispose it in light of the observations made above. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. The parties shall bear their own costs. * * *