The driver of a motor vehicle owes a duty of care to other road users, and is liable for any injuries or damages caused by their negligence.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

The appellants are the wife and five minor children of the deceased Mangilal, who as per the testimony of PW1 Vidhya Devi, the wife of the deceased, was earning his livelihood as a Teacher drawing wages in sum of Rs. 1455/- p.m. and additionally was earning 500/- p.m. through other activities.

2. On 29.5.1986, in the evening around 5.00 PM the deceased was driving his auto-cycle (Vicky) bearing registration No.RNN587. As per the claimants the tractor bearing registration No.RRN 6165, owned by respondents 1, 3 and 4 and driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner hit the auto-cycle and the rear wheel of the tractor ran over the deceased resulting in his death.

3. After recording evidence, vide impugned award dated 21st September, 1996 the learned Judge, MACT has returned a finding that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. The result is the claim petition being dismissed.

4. The claimants produced two witnesses; Vidhya Devi, the wife of the deceased as PW1 and one Peera Ram as PW2 who claimed to be the eye witness.

5. The learned Judge, MACT has held that Peera Ram was not an eye witness. The reason for so holding is that witness failed to disclose the number of the tractor during his testimony and said that he learnt the name of the driver of the tractor i.e. Jagdish from the utterances of the people at the scene of the accident.

6. I additionally note that in the charge-sheet Ex.C2, the name of Peera Ram is not entered as a witness of the prosecution.

7. The vehicle not being insured, the owners of the tractor contested the claim petition and examined two witnesses. Respondent No.1 Shiv Karan, one of the three co-owners of the tractor appeared as NAW1, deposed that on the date of the accident i.e. 29.5.1986 the tractor was in the custody of one Pukhraj, who was at a petrol pump when the accident took place. Bhanwarlal, NAW2, the Sarpanch of the village requested him to proceed to the site of the accident informing him that the deceased was lying there in an injured condition. The tractor driver took the tractor to the place of the accident with the intention to take the injured to the hospital. The police had reached the spot and seized the tractor.

8. Bhanwarlal, NAW2 supported the testimony of NAW1.

9. The post mortem report Ex.P/6 establishes that the deceased died due to rupture of the left lung at an accident.

10. The question which arises in the appeal is, whether the impugned award suffers from non-appreciation of relevant and material evidence.

11. As the adages goes. Men may lie but circumstances do not lie.

12. The testimony of the defence witnesses establishes the fact that the tractor was seized at a spot where the auto-cycle driven by the deceased was lying in a damaged condition and was also seized. As noted above, the case of the defence was that the driver of the tractor was at a petrol pump and being requested by NAW2 to take the injured to the hospital proceeded to the place of the accident.

13. The file of the criminal trial in which Jagdish stood trial for offences punishable under Section 279 and Section 304A IPC forms part of the trial court record and Ex.P/10 at the trial is a rojnamcha entry recorded at the local police station at 5.35 PM on 29.5.1986. The same records that on telephonic information it was informed that an accident involving tractor bearing registration No. RRN 6165 and an auto-cycle bearing registration No. RNN 587 had taken place.

14. This is a contemporaneous entry in the police record.

15. More importantly is the Ex.P/5 Fard Muayana i.e. inspection report of the tractor and the auto-cycle. It records that the front left tyre as also the rear tyre on the left of the tractor had a scratch of 1-1/2 feet. Splinter of glasses were embedded in the rear tyre. There was a scratch mark on the tool box on the left side of the tractor. It also records that the glass of the light of the auto-cycle was found broken and scattered at the spot.

16. Ex.P