C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) THE case of the appellant is when he was proceeding as a pillion on the scooter of his brother, a military jeep bearing No. 84 B 36360-Y came in their opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against that scooter, resulting in injuries to him. He sought Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation from the respondents- the owner of the jeep. Respondents filed a common counter admitting the accident and contending that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the scooter who was not having a driving licence. Appellant examined himself as P. W. 1 and marked Exs. A1 to A5. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the respondents. Holding that the appellant failed to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep the Tribunal dismissed the op, even without giving a finding on the quantum of compensation to which the appellant would have been entitled to, had the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. Hence, this appeal by the claimant.

( 2 ) THE points that arise for consideration are (i) whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep of respondent (ii) if so what is the compensation to which appellant is entitled to point NO. (I):

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in as much as the evidence of P. W. 1 shows that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep, and since the driver of the jeep did not go into the witness box to counter the evidence of P. W. 1. The accident should be held to have occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the jeep. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the respondents is that since the appellant did not examine the driver of the scooter, who gave report to the police about the accident and since there is no other evidence except the interested evidence of the appellant to show that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the jeep appellant failed to discharge the burden that lay on him and so the failure of the respondents to examine the driver of the jeep is of no consequence and the finding of the Tribunal on this issue is unassailable.

( 4 ) THE evidence of appellant, as P. W. 1, is that when he and his brother were proceeding on a scooter, a jeep came in the opposite direction at a high speed to be wrong side of the road and dashed against the scooter resulting in injuries to him and his brother. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that his brother, was driving the scooter at a high speed and dashed the scooter against a stationery jeep and apologized to the driver and that his brother alone was responsible for the accident. Ex. A1 is the certified copy of the First Information Report issued in connection with the accident, which shows that the report regarding the accident was given by the brother of the appellant, who was driving the scooter. The respondents, in the counter, admitted the accident and took a specific plea in the counter that the driver of the jeep is a well experienced driver and was driving the vehicle very carefully and very slowly and was turning the vehicle towards right slowly by giving signal by showing his hand and blowing the horn and flashing the lights of the vehicle while negotiating the turn and noticed a scooterist coming in the opposite direction at an uncontrollable speed very negligently. So, as a precautionary measure, he stopped the vehicle by applying brakes before the speeding scooter approached the jeep and the driver of the scooter could not control his scooter and when he applied the brake, it skidded and hit the stationery jeep and the Police, after investigation, found that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the jeep.

( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that since no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document