Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.—Upon the matter being heard at length on the last date i.e. 8.8.2017. The below quoted order was passed:

“This appeal has been filed by the claimants against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Agra dated 7.5.1991 in M.A.C. Case No. 132 of 1989.

According to the claim petition that was stated to have been filed on 15.3.1989, Purshottam was driving a horse-cart on 30.12.1988 on the Agra-Gwalior when his horse-cart was hit from behind by truck bearing registration No. CPF-9015 being driven in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, the horse-cart overturned and the deceased received grievous injuries to which he succumbed on the spot. The said truck was said to be insured by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

The insurer filed appearance before the Tribunal and opposed the claim. On merit it relied on alleged FIR lodged by Ram Babu the brother of the deceased Purshottam. While the original record is before this Court, a perusal of the same reveals copy of the FIR is not available. However, learned counsel for the appellant-claimants has supplied a copy of the said document, which copy itself is claimed to be photocopy of the certified copy of the FIR. The same is retained on record.

At the stage of evidence, the claimant Meera Devi was examined as PW-1, who is wife of the deceased Purshottam and also one Gurjan Singh (PW-2) was examined as an eye-witness, who was accompanying Purshootam on the horse-cart alongwith his goods. The owner of the offending vehicle Gurdeep Singh also appeared before the Tribunal and stated that the accident had occurred on account of negligence of Purshootam. He claimed to have paid Rs. 10,000/- to Ram Babu, the brother of the deceased. Ram Babu was not examined by either party.

The Tribunal had framed three issues being, whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck bearing registration No. CPF-9015; whether the claimants accepted any amount from the owner of the truck in full and final payment of compensation; what amount towards compensation, the claimants are entitled.

While deciding the first issue, the Tribunal took into account the testimony of the claimant Meera Devi, who was not an eye-witness, Gurjan Singh, who was a witness of fact and also the owner Gurdeep Singh, who claimed himself to be witness of fact.

Gurjan Singh specifically stated that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the truck bearing registration No. CPF 9015, inasmuch as he stated that the horse-cart was from behind hit by the truck at the spot where the road was sufficiently wide to allow the two trucks to pass.

On the other hand Gurdeep Singh, owner of the truck relied on the contents of the FIR that was lodged by Ram Babu, brother of the deceased to establish that the accident had been caused due to negligence of Purshottam the deceased and further he relied on that document to establish that the matter had been settled between the parties upon payment of Rs. 10,000/- to Ram Babu.

The Tribunal then appears to have accepted as gospel truth the statement made by the owner of the truck Gurdeep Singh and had concluded the accident had been caused because the mare (drawing the horse-cart) had panicked and that led to the accident. In doing so, the Tribunal relied entirety on the FIR version though it is an admitted case between the parties that the informant Ram Babu was not examined as witness in the proceedings before the Tribunal.

Thus while the first informant Ram Babu did not make any statement before the Tribunal as to the cause of the accident, the statement on oath made by Gurjan Singh, the person who undisputedly was an eye-witness of the accident and who had already been subjected to cross-examination, has been completely overlooked by the Tribunal.

In the statement of Gurjan Singh, which is on record, he specifically stated that the offending truck was being driven in a rash and