The High Court has the power to allow evidence to be brought on record to substantiate the cause of justice, even at the appellate stage, if it is satisfied that the evidence is authentic.

1. The claimants have come up in appeal against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kapurthala. The learned Tribunal found that the accident had taken place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 1, but no compensation was awarded to the claimants since they had failed to prove income of the deceased.

2. Facts first : Updesh Kumar Chopra died in an accident, which took place on August 29, 1984, at 1 p.m. on G.T. Road near Sugar Mills. Phagwara. He was going on his scooter bearing Registration No. PBT 9398 on G.T. Road, Phagwara. Respondent No. 1 was driving Truck No. PUM 3905 and was coming from Jullundur towards Phagwara. He was driving the truck rashly and negligently and struck against the scooter. As a result of the impact, Updesh Kumar was crushed and died at the spot. The claimants, who are the wife and children of Updesh Kumar deceased, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 84 lacs.

3. The respondents contested the application. They denied that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 1.

4. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:-

1. Whether Updesh Kumar Chopra died in accident caused by rash and negligent driving of truck No. PUM 3905 driven by Udham Singh driver respondent? OPA.

2. Whether the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased? OPD

3. To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled? OPA

4. Whether Udham Singh, respondent No. 1 was holding a valid licence at the time of alleged accident? OPR

5. Relief.

Under issue No. 1, it was held that the death was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Udham Singh, respondent No. 1. Issue No. 2 was not pressed by the respondents and at the trial they did not dispute that the applicants are the legal heirs of the deceased. Issue No. 3 was found against the claimants as income of the deceased was not proved. Issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the respondents. 4A. Mr. Munishwar Puri, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, assailed the finding of the learned Tribunal under issue No. 1. He submitted that the evidence of A.W.2 Rajinder Singh, who is the only eye-witness of the occurrence is not reliable and in addition thereto, even if it is proved that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by Respondent No. 1, the circumstances fully established that it was a case of contributory negligence. I have gone through the evidence of A.W.2 Rajinder Singh. He appears to be a straightforward and truthful witness. He acted in a manner warranted by the exigencies of the circumstances. Merely because he did not intimate the father-in-law of the deceased about the accident in the first instance will not make his presence at the spot unnatural. The minor discrepancies are inconsequential. It could not be expected that the witness should have acted in the manner suggested. When a young man was killed in the accident, there was panic. The witness must be anxious to inform the police immediately so that it could be put in motion and the driver of the offending vehicle is arrested. This is the normal conduct of a human being.

5 Respondents 1 and 2 did not take the plea of contributory negligence in the written statement. In the absence of any plea, I do not think it will be permissible for the learned counsel to argue this matter at the appellate stage. The learned counsel relied upon M/s. Krishna Goods Carriers (P) Ltd. V/s. Union of India, AIR 1980 Delhi 92, in support of his plea that it was not necessary for the respondents to plead and lead any evidence about the contributory negligence as it could be inferred from the evidence adduced by the claimants. This ruling renders no assistance to the respondents. Facts briefly in that case were that the driver of the plaintiff company was driving a mercedes motor truck. On September 23, 1961, at about 1.30 p.m., he was returning to Delhi