Bhagwan Dass and Another vs Kulwant Singh and Others

I.S. Tiwana, J.—These three appeals (Nos. 524 to 526 of 1979) are directed against the same judgment of the. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangrur, and are thus being disposed of through this common order.

As a result of the accident that took place on August 19, 1976, at about 11 p.m. near village Jheaur Majra on the outskirts of Sangrur towards Patiala side between car No. PNC-4210 and truck No. PNF-7629, Som Nath driver of the car died on the spot. Bhagwan Dass and two others namely, Sukhdev Raj and Puran Chand occupants of the car are alleged to have received injuries in that accident. The present appeals are by the heirs, and legal representatives of Som Nath driver, Bhagwan Dass, Puran Chand injured and Rameshwar Dass owner of the car. According to the version of the claimant-Appellants, they were returning from Nabha to Sangrur after attending a marriage there. By the time they reached near village Jheaur Majra, they found truck No. 7629 coming, from the opposite direction at a rash speed and being driven negligently by Kulwant Singh. According to them, the truck banged into the right side of the car, as a result of which, the car after covering some distance struck against a Shisham tree and turned its face towards the Patiala side, i.e., the side towards which the truck was going. The two injured namely Sukhdev Raj and Puran Chand were taken away from the spot by Sham Lal P.W. 19 who reached the place of occurrence shortly after the accident. Bhagwan Dass who admittedly has suffered serious injuries including the fracture of hip joint and was crying on that account was left in the damaged car itself. These two P Ws claimed to have noticed the presence of Kulwant Singh owner of the truck as well as the registration number of the same. According to their version, on reaching Sangrur. they were given first aid by Dr. J.K. Sharma.

In reply to the claim petition filed by the Appellants, Respondent Kulwant Singh took up the plea that on the day and time of occurrence, he was not driving the truck himself and the same was rather being driven by one of his employees namely Piare Lal R.W. 1. The version further is that even this Piare Lal was not on the spot as the truck by that time had developed a fault and had been parked on the road side at a safe distance, i.e., on the left side of the road. Leaving the truck there on the spot, Piare Lal had gone back to Bhucho to inform Kulwant Singh about the defect that had developed in the truck. According to defence version, it was only Gurjit Singh cleaner R.W. 2 who was present on the spot and was guarding the truck. According to this version, the car which was driven by Som Nath deceased banged into the truck and after hitting the same it skidded towards the left and turned its face towards Patiala side to which side the truck was to go. As a result of the above-noted counter versions pleaded by the parties, the lower Court framed number of issues for trial including the two material issues, i.e., Nos. 1 and 2 which read as follows:

(1) Did the accident take place due to rash or negligent driving of the truck by Kulwant Singh ? OPP.

(2) Was the truck being driven by Piare Lal ? If so, what is its effect ? OPP 1.

As a result of the trial that followed, the claim applications as already indicated were dismissed by the lower Court. Under the above-noted two issues, the finding recorded by the said Court is that at the crucial time the truck was not in motion or was being driven by Kulwant Singh much less rashly and negligently and in fact Piare Lal was the driver of the truck.

In support of their version, the claimants have examined Bhagwan Dass, Sukhdev Raj and Girdhari Lal the injured witnesses besides the evidence of the photographer and the Investigator Chanan Singh of the criminal case against Kulwant Singh. It may be mentioned here that Kulwant Singh was tried for an offence u/s 304-A I.P.C. and was ultimately acquitted by the District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur. For recording the above noted conclusion under issue Nos. 1 and 2, the lower Court has disbelieved the evidence of Sukhdev Raj and Girdhari Lal P Ws 21 and 22 respectively and has also decided to rely on the statements given by Bhagwan Dass and Chanan Singh P Ws.

After being taken through the evidence on record and more particularly the evidence of P Ws 21 and 22, I find that the reasons recorded by the lower Court for its conclusion noted-above are well merited and are unassailable. The conduct of these two witnesses in admitting that though they are close relations of Bhagwan Dass injured yet they left him on the spot crying in agony and themselves travelled to hospital in the car of Sham Lal P.W. is nothing but unnatural. Even the doctor from whom they claimed to have received first aid has not been examined to support their version. Otherwise, also, I find that even if the evidence of these two witnesses is to be believed for the sake of argument, as is being contended by the learned Counsel for the claimants, then to my mind, this evidence completely, supports the version of the other side, i.e., at the time of accident the truck involved was in a stationary condition and it was the car which banged into it. Support for this conclusion of mine-circumstances never tell lie is available from the photographs Exs. Rule 3 to Rule 5. From these photographs, it is clear that on the right side of the truck there was a line demarcated by stones and bricks indicating that the truck was not moving and was out of order. According to these witnesses, these photographs were taken by the police photographer on August 30, 1976, and according to them the truck was exactly in the same position as it was just at the time of the accident, when these photographs were taken. In spite of the fact that pointed attention of P.W. 21 was brought towards the bricks and stones lying on the road by the side of the truck, he chose to state that he did not find any such stones at the time when photographs were taken. This statement that these stones were not even there at the time when the photographs were taken is belied by the photographs themselves. So if their statement to the effect that the truck was exactly in the same position as it was just at the time of the accident and the line of stones or bricks was there is accepted then this lends complete support to the version of the Respondents. Thus besides all the reasons which have been recorded by the lower Court for concluding that the version given by the claimants is not acceptable, I find that the above noted circumstances completely knock the bottom out of their story. In view of this, I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the lower Court in issue Nos. 1 and 2.

As a necessary consequence of the above-noted discussion, these appeals fail and are dismissed but with no order as to costs.