The driver of a motor vehicle is liable for negligence if he parks the vehicle on the wrong side of the road with protruding bamboos and without back light, causing an accident.

R. K. DASH, J.

( 1 ) APPELLANTS are wife, daughters, son and parents of the Late Bijoy Bihari Swain (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') who was the Inspector of Police at the relevant time when he succumbed to injuries in a motor accident. The appellants moved the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation and their prayer having been rejected by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, they have preferred the present appeal.

( 2 ) SHORT facts, on 3-5-1990 at about 10. 30 p. m. , it is alleged, the deceased along with his friend, the pillion rider, while proceeding towards Jobra on the Rind Road, in a motor cycle, the driver of the truck bearing No. OSC 3861 loaded with bamboos drove the vehicle in reverse gear and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result, tail of the bamboo pierced into the vital part of the deceased causing injuries which resulted in his death. The pillion rider also sustained some injuries but survived. On a report being lodged by the pillion rider the police registered a case under S. 304, I. P. C. The appellants filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs stating, inter alia, that the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of death and was getting salary of Rupees 3,530/ -. The owner as well as the insurer on being noticed filed separate written statements denying that part of the appellants' assertion with regard to the manner of accident. Their positive assertion was that when the truck was standing the deceased drove the motor vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the protruding bamboos. Since the driver of the truck had no contribution to the accident, the appellants are not entitled to compensation either from the owner of the truck or the insurer.

( 3 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as 5 issues. The appellants adduced evidence both oral and documentary. The learned Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record disbelieved the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants and held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased and having held thus, dismissed the case.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants contended that in a claim case under the Motor Vehicles Act, the evidence should not be scrutinised in the manner as is done in civil or criminal proceedings. On an overall appreciation of the materials on record if the Tribunal arrives at the finding that there was an accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, notwithstanding the discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses, the Tribunal should determine the compensation payable to the claimant. In the present case, as borne out from the impugned judgment two stories were advanced by the appellants, one was that the accident occurred when the offending vehicle was parked on wrong side of the road loaded with bamboos without parking light on and the other was that the offending vehicle loaded with bamboos moved in reverse gear and the protruding bamboos pierced into the body of the deceased causing his death. Since there were two different stories put forth during trial, the learned Tribunal rejected both the stories and dismissed the case. For better appreciation it is necessary to scrutinise the evidence on record to find as to in what circumstances the accident occurred.

( 5 ) IN the F. I. R. , Ext. 14, which was lodged by no other than the pillion rider, it was alleged that the offending truck was standing on the wrong side on the Rind Road loaded with bamboos, having no parking light and the protruding bamboos pierced into the neck of the deceased, as a result he fell down from the motor cycle at a distance and succumbed to the injury. The appellants examined three witnesses. Of them P. W. 1 admittedly is not an eye-witness. The next witness is P. W. 2. A reading of his evidence would show that while the vehicle in q