The main legal point established in the judgment is the evaluation of compensation in motor accident claims, including the burden of proof for contributory negligence and the principles for assessing compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellants; Shri C.S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents; and perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment dated 18.3.1992 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/XIth Additional District Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.150 of 1987 rejecting the same and not awarding any compensation.

3. The brief facts as culled out from the record are that the deceased met with an accident on 12.3.1987 at about 09.40 hrs. The informant alongwith the deceased was going towards the Agra City, i.e., Agra Fort and the alleged Jeep and the Scooter were coming fro m the Agra City, i.e., Agra Fort. On notice being issued, the Insurance company appeared and filed their reply. The driver and owner accepted the accident having taken place but contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased herein.

4. Learned Counsel Sri Ramesh Singh has contended that the petition has been dismissed by assigning reasons which are not germane for the facts.

5. The Tribunal framed 3 issues and rejected the claim petition holding that it was not proved that the accident occurred with the military jeep in question. The Tribunal disbelieved PW-1, who is claimant and eye witness.

The F.I.R. categorically mentions about the truck. Just because the final report was filed will not conclusively prove that the vehicle was not involved. The Tribunal on surmises and conjectures disbelieved PW1 and PW2 only on the ground that there was a delay in filing the F.I.R. The written statement of the owner ought to have been looked into by the Tribunal before brushing aside the judgment and not relying on the authoritative pronouncements in Varinderjit Singh Vs. Tajinder Singh & others, 2008 (4) TAC 250 Punjab and Haryana, Devi Prasad Vs. Zahur Khan, 2001 (2) TAC 419 Madhya Pradesh, and Bhanwar Lal Verma Vs. Sharad Dholiya, 2007 ACJ 52.

6. It is further submitted that the appellant has challenged impugned award and decision dated 18.3.1992 on the following amongst grounds:

(i) The order passed by the Tribunal is illegal, perverse and against the evidence on record and based on conjectures and surmises and, as such, the same is liable to be quashed.

(ii) It is fully proved by the evidence on record that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No.25879-B, 17947 PCL (Military Jeep), the learned tribunal erred in holding otherwise.

(iii) It is apparent fro the First Information Report and the evidence of PW-1 that the informant alongwith the deceased was going towards the Agra City i.e. Agra Fort and the alleged Jeep and the Scooter were coming from the Agra City i.e. Agra Fort, the tribunal erred in interpreting the words used in First Information Report.

(iv) The Learned Tribunal has suo moto added the word "se" in a sentence written in First Information Report i.e. "jaise hi hum log Agra Fort ki taraf se chalte huye satsang Ashram..............." while the word "se" is not used in the said sentence in the manner interpreted by the tribunal written in the First Information Report and, as such, the learned Tribunal erred by misreading the First Information Report by adding himself the word "se" and by returning adverse finding as far as negligence and involvement is concerned.

(v) The Tribunal erred by misreading the testimony of scooter driver Akhlak Hussain i.e. "wah scooter se kile ke taraf purani mandi taj ganj ja raha tha", while the Akhlak Hussaini Scooter Driver has said in his evidence that "main apne scooter se Agra kila se purani mandi Tajganj ja raha tha".

(vi) The photographs-Exhibits No.3 to 6, fully prove that the Military Jeep (No.25879-B-1794 PCL) was involved in the accident, the learned Tribunal erred in holding otherwise and wrongly rejected the claiman