The claimant has the burden of proving his own case by adducing reliable and trustworthy evidence, and failure to do so may lead to an adverse inference being drawn against him.

T.N. Singh, J.

1. For last ten years, this hopeless appeal has awaited a short order and that is made here and now.

2. The claimant/appellant described himself as an artist and at that, a film artist. He came from Bombay to Gwalior and on the fateful night, on 25.5.1977, at around 11.00 p.m., the car which he was driving met with an accident near Tekanpur.

3. His case is that from the opposite side, a truck, fully loaded, coming at a very high speed, at around 50/60 km. per hour, suddenly dashed against his car which got damaged and he also sustained some injuries. In the car, he was accompanied by two witnesses, CWs 2 and 3, but the owner of the car did not enter the witness-box. Admittedly, the position on facts is that the claimant had borrowed the car which he was driving himself when the accident took place. Nothing has come on record to suggest that any claim has been lodged for damage caused to the car. It has not been proved by any reliable and independent evidence that the car suffered any serious damage. Neither any mechanic has been examined undertaking spot inspection; nor any other person from the workshop where it must have been repaired if the car really suffered serious damage as needed treatment at any workshop.

4. The claimant's case has been disbelieved by the Tribunal. His evidence has been rejected as also of the other two witnesses, CW 2 and

3. In so far as CW 3 is concerned, he was a first cousin of claimant himself and was rightly regarded as an interested witness. He deposed that he was sitting by the claimant's side in the front seat but admitted that he suffered only slight injury. Claimant has also admitted in his evidence that he did not receive any treatment at Gwalior and preferred to take treatment in Bombay. His own case is that he got first aid at Dabra Primary Health Centre after the accident and was discharged from there the same day.

5. Although the driver came into the witness-box and deposed as DW 1, nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination as would lend support to the deposition of the witnesses of claimant. He deposed that he went to the Police Station to report the occurrence, but his F.I.R. was not recorded and, on the other hand, when sometime later the claimant reached the Police Station and rang up from there the 'bosses' in Gwalior, something happened as a result of which F.I.R. lodged by the claimant was recorded. He also admitted that he was prosecuted and he was prevailed upon to admit his guilt on being told that he will have to suffer a sentence of fine of Rs. 20/- to Rs. 25/- only.

6. The version of the occurrence given by DW 1 found favour with the Tribunal. He deposed that at the time of accident, he saw the car at a distance of about 100 yards coming in a zigzag fashion. He stopped his truck, but the car driver could not control his vehicle and the car continued to move before stopping at a distance of 5 to 10 paces after grazing against the truck. His evidence is also that the person driving the car appeared to be drunk and that his eyes were red. Strangely enough, this piece of evidence was not challenged in cross-examination. The Tribunal has accordingly accepted the "theory of drunkenness" and it found support for the same in the evidence of CW 2, who admitted that on being scared by the erratic driving of CW 1, he had unbolted the car's door for a probable dive.

7. It is too late to restate today the well-settled proposition of law that onus lies on the claimant to prove his own case that not only there was an accident, but the tortfeasor was negligent in driving the offending vehicle which gave rise to the cause of action for the claim. Accordingly, the appellant had to prove his case by adducing other reliable evidence as would carry conviction. Admittedly, there being police investigation on F.I.R. lodged, documentary evidence was available, but that has not been brought in the claim case for corroboration. Indeed, by that courts have also been depriv