In claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, strict adherence to pleadings should not result in innocent victims being denied compensation. Culpability should be inferred from circumstances where reasonable, and technicalities and mystic maybes should be avoided.

J. V. Gupta, J.

1. Eric Oliver Dean, aged 33 years, died in an accident in which scooter No. HRP 997 and truck No. HRC 2596 were involved on November 25, 1978, at about 5.30p. m. , in sector 7a, Faridabad. His widow, two daughters and mother filed a claim petition under Sec.110a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which was dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short "the Tribunal" ). Dissatisfied with the same, the claimants have filed the appeal in this court.

2. According to the claimants, Eric Oliver Dean was driving scooter No. HRP 997 on November 25, 1978, at about 530 p. m. , when the offending truck came from behind him. The truck hit the scooter and as a result of the impact, Eric Oliver Dean was thrown out of the scooter and he sustained multiple injuries and died at the spot. The truck belonged to M/s. Pratap Steel Rolling Mills, respondent No.1, and it was being driven by Swaran Singh. The truck was insured with the insurance company, respondent No.2. The deceased was 33 years old and was employed in the Shipping Corporation of India and his monthly income was Rs.867.63 besides usual perks. Thus, the claimants claimed Rs.1,50,000 on account of compensation. In the written reply filed on behalf of the owner of the truck, it was, inter alia, pleaded that the accident had taken place entirely due to rash and negligent driving of Eric Oliver Dean. However, it was conceded that the truck belonged to the said respondent. With regard to the manner of accident, it was stated that the truck in question was going on the main road of sectors 6 and 7 from North to South at a very low speed as it had to turn towards the right side. The deceased was driving the scooter and came on his scooter rashly and negligently and hit the rear part of the truck after the truck had taken a turn to its right side for entering sector 6. Immediately, the truck was stopped by its driver and there was no question of any rash and negligent driving on the part of the truck driver. The criminal proceedings taken against the truck driver were subsequently filed. In the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :

1. Whether the petitioners have locus standi to file this petition 2. Whether the petition bears proper court-fee ?

3. Whether Eric Oliver Dean died as a result of rash or negligent driving of truck in question by respondent No.3 ?

4. Whether the accident was caused by rash or negligent driving of the scooter by the deceased ?

5. To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled and against whom 3. Under issue No.1, the learned Tribunal found that the widow and two minor daughters of Eric Oliver Dean (deceased) were competent to file the claim petition. Since the proper court-fee was paid, therefore, issue No.2 became redundant. Issues Nos.3 and 4 were discussed together. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the evidence, came to the conclusion that the version about the manner of accident, as pleaded on behalf of the truck owner, could not be accepted, particularly when the truck driver was not produced in evidence. The two witnesses, Binda Parshad (RW1) and Shiv Narain Pandey (RW2), who were alleged to be present at the time of the accident, were found to be doubtful. Consequently, it was observed :

" I am, therefore, not prepared to believe that the truck was going at a very slow speed or that the driver had given a signal to turn to his right side. Moreover, neither Binda Parshad, who was allegedly sitting by the side of the driver of the truck, nor Shiv Narain Pandey, who was on the rear side of the truck, either claimed to have seen or were in a position to see the manner in which the accident occurred. The testimony of Anil Khosla (PW1) who was sitting on the pillion seat of Eric Oliver Dean (deceased) was accepted. According to him, the accident was caused because the truck suddenly turned towards right without giving any signal when the deceased was about to o