TYAGI, J.—This appeal has been filed by the claimants under sec 110 D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 challenging the award of the Accident Motor Claims Tribunal, Bikaner dated 6th June, 1970.

2. On 2nd June, 1966 one Ram Kumar was looking after his truck on the road between Gajner and Bikaner at a distance of about 5 miles from Nall. A truck bearing No. R.J. K. 3528 driven by Niranjan Singh driver came from Bikaner side and dashed against Ram Kumar who was standing on the road. As a result of that accident Ram Kumar sustained serious head injuries. He was immediately removed to the hospital but his life could not be saved. Ram Kumars wife Smt. Maina, his minor son Babu, minor daughter Panchu and mother Smt. Chandra filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner for Rs. 10,000/- as damages for the death of Ram Kumar. In their application driver Niranjan Singh, owner of the truck Mohanlal and the General Assurance Society Ltd. were made parties

3. Mohanlal came out with a plea that he had sold this truck which was registered in his name to one Karnail Singh son of Niranjan Singh on 15-1-1963, and Karnail Singh further sold the vehicle to another Karnail Singh son of Jag Singh r/o Padampur on 5-6-1963. He therefore, pleaded that without impleading the aforesaid two Karnail Singh, the claim petition could not be decided by the Tribunal.

4. Niranjan Singh driver denied to have driven that vehicle on the day when the accident had taken place. He also denied that he was ever in the employment of Mohanlal, the alleged owner of the truck

5. Defendant No. 3 the General Assurance Society Ltd. in its written reply stated that on 2nd June, 1966 the truck which was responsible for causing the death of Ram Kumar was not insured with it. It was further averred that the truck was insured with the company on 21st of May, 1965 but that insurance policy had expired on 20th of May 1966 and thereafter it was not renewed by the owner of the truck, and therefore, the Assurance Company was not liable for any damages caused to Ram Kumar.

6. As many as 12 issues were framed by the Tribunal. The claimant Smt. Maina came in the witness box produced two other witnesses namely P.W. 2 Rewat Ram and P.W. 3 Girdhari who were present at the spot where the incident had taken place. Mohanlal on the other hand examined himself and produced the sale agree- ment Ex. A. 1 by which the said truck was sold by him in the month of January 1963 to Karnail Singh, son of Niranjan Singh. Karnail Singh D.W. 2 however supported the averment made by Mohanlal that he hid sold that truck to him on 15-1-1963, and further deposed that the truck was thereafter sold by him to another Karnail Singh son of Jag Singh who has been examined as D.W. 4 and endorsed the statement of DW. 2.

7. Niranjan Singh has also come in the witness box as D.W. 3 and denied to have driven that truck on that day and deposed that he was never in the employment of Mohanlal.

8. It may be mentioned here that in a criminal case which was lodged against Niranjan Singh concerning this accident, it was admitted by Niranjan Singh before the criminal court while examined under sec. 342 Cr.P.C. that he was driving the truck which dashed against Ram Kumar and caused injuries to him on 2-6-1966, The findings of the Tribunal are that the applicants failed to prove that Niranjan Singh was in the employment of Mohanlal as his driver; and that Mohanlal owned the truck No. RJK 3528 and on the fateful day i.e. on June, 2, 1966; and that the truck was driven by Niranjan Singh. In view of these findings the claim of the petitioners was dismissed by the Tribunal. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have filed this appeal under sec. 110 D of the Motor Vehicles Act.

9. It is admitted by the parties that the registration of the truck No. RJK 3528 stood on 2-6-66 in the name of Mohanlal. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the oral testimony of Mohanlal cannot be believed to hold that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document