Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 477 (RAJ)

Kuldeep Kaur v. Uda Ram

2020-03-05

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2020
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: '(a) The award dated 10.5.2000 be set aside. (b) The claim application be allowed and compensation with interest as prayed be granted. (c) Any other relief for which the Appellants are entitled be granted.' 2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that an unfortunate accident had happened on 13.10.1992, when Late Shri Pal Singh was going on his motorcycle from Sri. Ganganagar towards his home Chak 23 G.G., and when he was on his way and reached near Chak 9 A Chhoti Bus Stand, a Tractor bearing registration No. BHD 6191 (old number) (present No. HR 24/6292) was going from Padampur towards Sri. Ganganagar. The said tractor while being driven by its driver Uda Ram in a rash and negligent manner, hit the said motorcycle, as a result whereof, Late Shri Pal Singh fell down and succumbed to the injuries caused thereby. An FIR in relation to the said accident was lodged immediately at Police Station, Choonawadh. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in deciding issues No. 1 and 2 against the appellants/claimants, as AW-3 Amritpal had deposed that while he was coming, he saw that a tractor coming from opposite direction collided with the motorcycle. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants further submitted that AW-4 Jagraj Singh has also deposed that Tractor No. 6191 was brought to his workshop for repair works of light, which he could not perform, as he was not having the facility to make electric repairs. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants also submitted that AW-4 further stated that while he was carrying his family, he saw Tractor No. PHD 6191 lying on the road, after meeting with the accident. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants also submitted that AW-5 Iqbal Singh stated that the driver of Tractor bearing registration No. PHD 6191 was brought to the workshop of Jagraj Singh, a proprietor of welding shop for repair of dynamo of the tractor, but the same was not done as Jagraj Singh was not having the facility of making electric repairs. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has drawn the attention of this Court towards the deposition made by AW-6 Lekh Raj, who deposed that the tractor in fact had caused the accident and the tractor was not having its lights in operation. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents however, submitted that there is no eye witness to the accident in question, as AW-1 Kuldeep Kaur wife of deceased Shri Pal Singh had no direct knowledge of the accident. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that AW-2 Darshan Singh is father of deceased Shri Pal Singh and not an eye witness. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that Aw-3 Amritpal stated that the tractor was being driven by someone, who was in drunken state, but he did not recognize the person, who was driving the tractor or riding the motorcycle. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that AW-4 Jagraj Singh was a mechanic and could hardly depose anything pertinent to the accident. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court towards the deposition of AW-5 Iqbal Singh, who also deposed indirectly that the tractor was brought for repairs to the shop of Jagraj Singh, but could not throw any light on the accident in question. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the deposition of the witnesses in favour of the claimants is very doubtful. This Court also finds that the involvement of the tractor in question is not made out, as there is no immediate or direct knowledge of the tractor in question being involved in the accident, and merely subsequently, after few days, the tractor has been brought into picture; whereas, most of the witnesses are only interested witnesses. 13. This Court further finds that the investigation in the criminal case also resulted into final/closure report. The said final/closure report of the accident mentioned that the vehicle involved in the accident could not be identified, and nor any information regarding the tractor in question could be obtained. 14. Once the involvement of the tractor in question itself is doubtful, then saddling the owner of the tractor with the liability to satisfy the claim is not possible. The said final/closure report of the accident mentioned that the vehicle involved in the accident could not be identified, and nor any information regarding the tractor in question could be obtained. 14. Once the involvement of the tractor in question itself is doubtful, then saddling the owner of the tractor with the liability to satisfy the claim is not possible. Even if the owner admits of being the owner of the tractor in question, then also until the involvement of the tractor in the accident itself is established, the owner thereof cannot be held liable to discharge the claim/compensation. 15. Since the police investigation has also indicated that the vehicle, which had caused the accident, could not be identified, therefore, there is no evidence whatsoever, which could directly indicate even to prima facie belief that the tractor in question was involved in the accident in question. Hence, no case for making any interference with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal is made out. 16. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed. Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith.