Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral):- All the appeals arise out of the same accident that resulted in death of a scooterist. The appeal in FAO No.2617 of 1996 is for enhancement of compensation for the death of the scooterist, aged 29 years, where the claimants were widow, two minor children and mother. The Court had assessed the compensation at Rs. 1,15,200/-. The owner is in appeal in FAO No.2412 of 1996 on a plea that the award is wrongly passed against the owner and the liability must have been fastened only on the insurer. The contention was that the accident was a result of deceased himself ramming into a stationary tractor and there was no proof of negligence. Consequently, there is no cause of action for prosecuting the claim. In any event, the driver had a valid driving licence and the Tribunal was in error in relying on an evidence that the endorsement of licence was made subsequent to the accident. The contention of the owner was that even a Clerk, who was examined from DTO’s office, did not place any document and merely spoke about the alleged endorsement to drive a scooter as having been made subsequent to the accident. The counsel would place reliance on the document filed in Court and contended that it did not contain the date of endorsement of the driving licence. According to him, the driver had a valid driving licence. There is also a Civil Revision No.4426 of 1999 that challenges the award of compensation for damages to the scooter assessed at Rs. 8,500/-.

2. The accident had taken place on 10.05.1995. The averment in the petition was that the claimant was going on the scooter on GT Road and when he reached in the area of village Teora near Teora on the GT Road, the respondent No.1 who was driving the tractor trolley rashly and negligently and without blowing any horn and violating all the traffic rules caused the accident. In evidence, PW2 had narrated that he saw the deceased overtaking him in his scooter, while he himself was riding a cycle. A tractor was being driven ahead of him and the tractor driver suddenly applied the brake and he lent a graphic description of the fact that the collision happened only when the tractor driver suddenly applied the brake and the scooterist rammed against the tractor. The counsel for the owner argued that the recital in the petition that the tractor which was being run on the wrong side must be taken as a vehicle coming from the opposite direction and PW2 himself gave evidence to the effect that the tractor was going ahead of the scooter and the collision took place when the driver of the tractor suddenly applied the brake. I cannot dissect the expression “driving by the driver on the wrong side” to mean that the vehicle was coming from the opposite direction. All the expressions that would constitute a negligent driving are put forth in the petition, namely, of a person, who was driving rashly and negligently without horn, driving on the wrong side and violating all traffic rules. It is typically an inartistic pleading and if we must look for any clarity, it could come only from the evidence of a witness which cannot be said to be inconsistent with pleadings. On the other hand, it explains the pleading in its perspective. The witness’s statement was clear that the tractor was going ahead with a trolley attached and it had suddenly applied brake when the scooterist rammed into it. The driver himself had his own version to give that at the relevant time he was not actually driving the tractor but the vehicle had remained parked on the kacha berm of the of the road and the accident had resulted by a recklessly driving of the scooterist. If there were two versions relating to how the vehicle was being driven, I would go with the version given by a person, who spoke about the negligent driving, more particularly, when that was the approach adopted by the Tribunal. But a person who rammed his vehicle from behind ought to be surely taken as a person contributing to the accident