The court held that the testimony of the eye witnesses was reliable and that the non-applicants had failed to produce the log book of the truck, which would have supported their claim that the truck was not involved in the accident.

1. - This is an appeal against the Judgment and Award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated May 20, 1982 whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the claimants-appellants.

2. The facts briefly stated are: that on 7-11-1979, at about 2 P.M., Mst. Pushpa aged about 3 years was crushed by a Military Truck bearing No. 77C-18254-A, which was driven by non-applicant-respondent No. 1 Devilal, who was driver in the Military. This incident has been witnessed by PW 3 Kanhaiyalal and Mst. Kamla, the mother of deceased Pushpa. It is alleged that PW 3 Kanhaiyalal noted the number of the truck and gave one slip bearing that number of the truck to the wife of applicant-appellant No. 1 Amarlal as Amarlal has gone to attend a funeral of his tenant. He was informed about the accident. He came to his home and gathered all informations and then lodged its report at Police Station, Mohamandir at about 3-15 P.M. The copy of the F.I.R. has been marked Ex. 2. In this F.I.R. it has been claimed that this accident has been done of non-applicant-respondent No. 1 Devilal, who is driver in the Military. The names of the eye witnesses have also been disclosed and in the further enquiry by the Police Officer, he has disclosed the number of the truck as 18245 instead of 18254. The Police registered a case and seized the truck bearing No. 77C-18254-A. The case against the accused Devilal was challaned. The claimants-appellants preferred their claim before the Tribunal, wherein it has been contended that Mst. Pushpa died at the spot instantaneously. Had she remained alive, she should have started earning at the age of 11-12 years and would have contributed to the family upto the age of 20 years. Her income has been assessed at Rs. 300/- per month and, therefore, Rs. 25,000/-have been claimed as damages. The damages have been claimed only on account of the loss of income of her contribution to the family. No claim has been made on account of mental agony, loss of love and affection or on any other count. The non-applicants-respondents filed their separate written statements and have contended that this accident has not taken place by this vehicle because at the relevant time, this truck was in the duty of Capt. B.K. Sethi, who came to Jodhpur on Government duty between 1 P.M. to 3 P.M. and therefore, it did not move out of the military area. It was submitted that the claimants-appellants are not entitled to any compensation. The non-applicant-respondent No. 1 Devilal has further taken a plea that relations between the family of the claimants and his family were strained long before this accident and a case was pending between his father and the father of applicant-appellant No. 1 Amarlal and therefore, he has been falsely entangled in this case.

3. On the basis of these pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and' the parties led their evidence. After hearing both the parties, the learned lower court (learned Tribunal) came to the conclusion that this acci dent has not taken place by this truck. It has held the testimony of PW 3 Kanhaiyalal is unreliable and has placed great reliance on the testimony of Maj. B.K. Sethi. However, it has assessed the damages at Rs. 6000/- while relying on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Syed Patel v. N.H. Doddabasappa and Ors. 1982 ACJ 1 and has held that the claimant, if they can succeed in their claim are entitled to get damages of Rs. 6,000/- on account of the death of this girl but their claim has been dismissed.

4. Aggrieved against this Judgment, the claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. H.L. Panwar, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants-appellants and Mr. H.A. Parekh, Mr. D.R. Bhandari and Mr. N.P. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the non-applicant-respondents, and have carefully gone through the record of the case.

6. Mr. H.R. Panwar, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants-