Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award 24.5.2003 passed by learned MACT, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar in MAC No. 122/99 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants/appellants has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal as alleged in the claim petition are that on 8.12.1998 at around 8.00 am deceased Bhagirath Mal was going in his Tractor. When he reached Sundarpura Joda road, a Bus bearing No. RJ 18-P-0667 which was driven by respondent No. 4 in rash and negligent manner, came from front side and dashed against the Tractor. Due to said accident, Shri Bhagirath Mal has died on the spot and his Tractor was also damaged. Present appellants have filed claim petition which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the claimants have failed to prove the fact that deceased Bhagirath Mal died due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver and issue No. 1 has been decided against the present appellants. Hence, this civil misc. appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record especially the impugned judgment and award.

4. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that from the evidence of AW.3 Jairam who was also traveling on the same Tractor it is proved that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 4, the Bus driver and the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective. The challan has also been filed against the driver of the Bus and this fact has not been appreciated by the Tribunal.

5. The key witness in the present case is AW-3 Jairam who happened to be eye-witness. He has stated in his examination in chief that the Bus had came on wrong side. It hit the Tractor due to which hook between the Trolly and the Tractor broken. Trolly fell down on the road and the Tractor has entered in the Bus. The Bus dragged the Tractor towards wrong side of the road. But, this manner of accident has not been pleaded in the claim petition itself. The contention of the claimants is that respondent has not denied the factum of the accident. It is true that the respondent has not denied the factum of the accident but, he had denied negligence which has been attributed to him and in reply to the claim petition, it has been pleaded that it was the driver of the Tractor who was negligent. The site plan, Exhibit 6, which is document placed before the Tribunal by the claimants themselves has not corroborated the fact which was stated by AW.3 Jairam in his statement. Exhibit 6, the site plan, goes to show that the Trolly and the Tractor both were lying on wrong side of the road and not on the road. The site plan (Ex. 6) does not suggest that the Bus dragged the Trolly or the Tractor towards wrong side. There are no such dragging marks found on the spot and hence, evidence of AW.3 Jairam has not been corroborated by Exhibit 6, the site plan. Rather the site plan goes to suggest that the Tractor had gone on wrong side and it hit the But on the wrong side. In the FIR which was lodged by the brother of the deceased nothing has been stated about the manner of the accident and it does not contain the fact that the Bus has arrived at wrong side and hit the Tractor and dragged it towards wrong side. Hence, the manner of accident which was stated by AW.3 Jairam has not been corroborated by the FIR and site plan totally negativate the statement of AW-3 Jairam.

6. Per contra, NAW-1 Jagdish, driver of the Tractor, has stated that the Tractor had arrived at wrong side. He had taken the Bus 10ft. below the road, there the Tractor hit the Bus. He has denied the fact that the Bus has dragged the Tractor to wrong side. The learned Tribunal has assessed all these facturn and rightly arrived at a conclusion that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the deceased himself.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision in t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document