( 1 ) THE claimants in these two matters have come up in appeal because the Tribunal has rejected the claim for compensation on the short ground that the offending truck in question could not be identified as the O. N. G. C. truck in question. The claimants in the first matter in respect of death of Maganlal Sanalal Mistry have now confined their claim only to a sum of Rs. 90 0 while in the other appeal the claim of the injured claimant Maganlal Motilal Prajapati is of Rs. 100

( 2 ) THE accident took place on the Deesa Palanpur Highway at about 10 P. M. on 21/07/1969 The deceased Maganlal Mistry and the injured claimant in the other matter Maganlal Prajapati had been given a lift by respondent No. 7. Deputy Engineer Mr. Patel who had gone for a visit on the site at Deesa. On the return journey after leaving Deesa at about 9 P. M. when they had travelled for about 12 miles away Between Chandisar and Chadotar Villages on the Highway in the sim of Badarpura village this accident had taken place between the jeep and the O. N. G. C. truck in question No. GTD 5497. The claimants jeep was left hand vehicle and it was driven by respondent No. 7 Mr. Patel. Maganlal Prajapati was sitting in the front seat and to the further right Maganlal Mistry the deceased was sitting also in the front seat. The case of the injured claimant Prajapati was that the truck was driven in the middle of this tar road which at the place of the accident was really running west to east. They had seen the truck at a distance of about two furlongs. The jeep driver dimmed his light and slowed down his speed from 30 to 18 K. M. per hour. The jeep was driven on the correct left side. The truck driver however was coming on the middle with headlights on and he did not dim his lights or lessened his speed and did not even divert his truck to the left but continued in the middle of the road even when the accident took place. Therefore the accident had occurred as the O. N G. C. truck in question dashed with the jeep. Thereupon Maganlal Mistry fell down on the ground and the injured claimant Prajapati was hit by one iron rod of hood canvass of the jeep and he had become unconscious and fallen in the jeep car. The offending truck had dashed with the jeep. It did not stop and had gone away. Thereafter in the another O. N. G. C. truck which came on the spot the injured were removed to the hospital. The other injured Maganlal Mistry expired and therefore his dependants and heirs have filed the claim application. The original claim has now been reduced in appeal to Rs. 90 1100 and the injured claimant has claimed a sum of Rs. 10 0 That is how both these matters are in this appeal as the Claims Tribunal has refused to believe the identity of the offending truck in question.

( 3 ) ON the question of the accident between the jeep and the truck the injured claimant Prajapati who has given evidence in the companion matter which was treated as evidence in both the matters at Ex. 66 is corroborated from various independent sources. So far as the injuries to these two persons are concerned Dr. Bhogilal Patel Ex. 84 who Performed post-mortem examination as per the P. M. notes Ex. 85 and who had issued the injuries certificate at Ex. 86 corroborates the evidence of Prajapati. The deceased had about 6 external injuries most of which were on the right hand side along with the various internal injuries as deposed by the doctor which were necessarily fatal and they are consistent with the version of Prajapati that in this motor accident the deceased had been tossed and he had fallen down. The injuries on Prajapati as per certificate Ex. 86 consists of one contused lacerated wound 2x T skull deep over right parietal region 4 above the right ear and X-ray plate of the skull showed lined fracture of right parietal bone. There was one scratch mark 19 in length right side of parietal. The inquest Panchnama Ex. 97 proved by Panch with Budhalal Magaljibhai Ex. 96 also corroborates t