The owner of a vehicle is liable for an accident caused by a mechanical defect only if the owner can prove that they had taken all necessary precautions to keep the lorry in a road-worthy condition and that the defect occurred inspite of reasonable care and a caution taken by the owners.

Bhawani Singh, J.-These appeals (F.A.O. (MVA) No. 22 of 1982 Smt. Mewa Devi and others v. M/s. Ram Prakash Rajinder Paul and another and F.A.O. (MVA) No. 23 of 1982, Smt. Kamla Devi and others v. M/s. Ram Prakash Rajinder Paul and another,) arise out of the same accident and the same award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul districts decided on 3-3-1982 thereby rejecting the claims of the appellant. The issues involved being common, both the appeals are being taken up for decision together.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellants are the dependants of the deceased in these two cases and the claim petitions pertain to the death of Waryam Singh (F.A.O. 22 of 1982) and Paras Ram (F.A.O. 23 of 1982) in an accident of truck bearing No. HPM 9755 on 30-1-1981 owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2. It took place near Badanu on Mandi-Kullu road at 5.30 p.m. on that day. As a result of this accident, deceased Waryam Singh succumbed to injuries in Civil Hospital, Mandi, on 4-1-1981 and deceased Paras Ram died on 5-1-1981 in the same hospital due to injuries. In both the cases, the claims are to the extent of Rupees two lacs preferred through separate claim petitions on the ground that the accident, in question, was as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle. The claims were rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the steering of the vehicle got locked as a result of which it turned to the right and fell down into the river. According to the Tribunal, it was a latent defect for which none could be held responsible. The result was that the claim petitions were dismissed. Hence these appeals by the claimants to assail the award of the Tribunal.

3. It is urged by Sh. M.C. Mandhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants, that the Tribunal drew its conclusions on the basis of conjectures and surmises, otherwise there is enough evidence on the record to indicate that the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the driver. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not properly read and understood the evidence with the result that wrong conclusions have been arrived at and the same, therefore, deserve to be set aside. On the other hand, Sh. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, urges that the award of the Tribunal is correct and in view of the latent defect in the steering of the vehicle, no other conclusion could be possibly arrived at by the Tribunal. At this stage reference to the statements of material witnesses on this aspect of the matter is necessary.

4. Pritam Singh (PW 2) states that the vehicle was coming at a high speed. It fell down after breaking the parapet on the road side. The place where the accident took place was quite level and was so wide that three vehicles could pass at the same time at that point. It did not rain that day. Lot of traffic plies on that road. The truck which met with the accident, he states, was being driven rashly. A driver can drive the vehicle on that road at any speed he liked. He did not know the cause of the accident and he could not say that the accident took place due to the jamming of the steering. There was no curve at the place where the truck fell down but there was a small curve towards Badanu at a distance of fifteen yards from the place of accident. The turn of the curve was towards the right side while coming from Pandoh.

5. Rajinder Pal (RW 1) states that after three-four days of the accident he came to know from the conductor in the hospital that prior to the accident he heard the driver saying that the steering of the truck had got jammed and the brakes could not function. It was due to these defects which cropped up suddenly that the accident took place. In cross-examination, he states that he had no personal knowledge about the cause of the accident.

6. Rup Lal (RW 4) is a Police mechanic. He states that the vehicle was inspected by him on 4-1-1981 an