The identity of a vehicle involved in an accident can be established through the testimony of an eye witness, even if the witness is illiterate and cannot read or write.

JUDGMENT

1. - This judgment will dispose of the appeal filed by the claimants, against the impugned Award dated the 28th March, 1980 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Tonk, dismissing the claims petition of the claimants for compensation.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that, Chhotu and Ralu were father and son. While going on cycle to their fields on 7th November, 1977 at about 6.30 a.m. on Jaipur Tonk Road, near garden of Ishaq Khan, which is 2 kms away from Tonk, they were hit by truck No. RRL 2737, which was being driven by Hanuman Singh, rashly and negligently.The cycle was going by in Kacha of the left side of the road but, the speed of the truck was to much and was being driven so negligently with the result, Chhotu died on the spot on the hit of the truck to the cycle and Kalu because unconscious who also died in the hospital. The truck did not stop then and there and its number came to be known at the Municipal Barrier of Tonk. On account of the injured sustained in the accident, Chhotu and Kalu died.

3. It is alleged that Chhotu, the deceased, was a healthy and young person and was the only number to bread his family and Kalu, the deceased was working with his father, as helper. The dependants of the deceased have claimed the compensation and expectancy of the income benefit from the deceased in the following manner.

1.	Bheru, Father of Chhotu, Rs. 50 p.m. for 10 years	Rs. 6,000/-
2.	Mst. Lali, Mother of Chhotu Rs. 40/- p.m. for 15 Years	Rs. 7,200/-
3.	Mst. Ganga, w/o Chhotu Rs. 100/- p m. for 40 years	Rs. 48,000/-
4.	Prabhu, s/o Chhotu claimed	Rs. 10,400/-
5.	Mst. Meera d/o Chhotu	Rs. 18,500/-
6.	Sita d/o Chhotu	Rs. 21,600/-

In all, a sum of Rs. 2,78,700/- was claimed as compensation.

4. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint reply denying the accident so also the income of the deceased Chootu as Rs. 100/- per month. The respondents also denied that the truck was being driven fatly, rashly and negligently. On the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed and in support of their case, the claimants examined Bheru (PW 1), Pyarelal (PW 2), Jamna Lal (PW 3), Dr. Beni Prasad (PW 4) and Ganpat (PW 5) in additional to the documentary evidence produced and the non-claimants examined Hanuman Singh (DW 1), Satyanarain(DW 2) and Kazi Afajallul Islma (DW 3). The Tribunal decided issue No. 1 against the claimants holding that it is not proved that this accident took place with the truck No. RRL 2737 driven by Hanuman Singh. While deciding issue No. 2, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the complainants are entitled to get Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the death of Chootu and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the death of Kalu. The Tribunal, as the issue No. 1 was being decided against he claimants, dismissed the claims petition of the complainants for compensation.

5. Hence this appeal.

6. After the arguments were heard in the case, it was thought that it would be in the interest of justice to further examine Ganpat consequently he was examined on 26th September, 1984 by this Court.

7. The first and foremost question, which requires consideration by this Court is, whether the identity of truck No. RRL 2737 is established or not. It would not be pertinent to notice that Ganpat (PW 5), in his statement, had stated that he lodged an F.I.R. in the police station, of this accident, after observing it. The F.I.R. undoubtedly mentions the number of truck as RRL 2737.

8. Tribunal has disbelieved this version of Ganpat (PW 5) and held that since he was not in a position to mention the number of the vehicle in his statement and he confessed that he did not note the number and he cannot in any way, have identity of the truck after this accident.

9. Now, analysing the statement of Ganpat (PW 5), the first thing to be noticed is th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document