1980 Supreme(MP) 169

R. K. Vijaywargiya, J.
Rupibai v. Trimbakrao.
M. A. No. 26 of 1975 (I); Decided on 7-8-1980.

Headnote:(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 110 A -- application for compensation under -- when liable to be dismissed -- identity of vehicle and driver not established -- effect.

        (2) Practice (Civil) -- witness -- eye witness of accident -- when may be disbelieved -- number of vehicle not disclosed -- effect.

        These appeals by the claimants are directed against the award dated 29-7-74 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 50 of 1969 and 49 of 1969.

        Held : Having heard learned counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that these appeals deserve to be dismissed. The claimants examined Suresh Chandra (P. W. 2) and Ghisalal (A. W. 3) as eye witnesses to the accident. The Tribunal has disbelieved their testimony and has come to the conclusions that they were not eye witnesses to the accident. I was taken through the evidence of these witnesses and I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was fully justified in bolding that the aforesaid witnesses were not eye witnesses to the accident. Suresh Chandra (A. W. 2) stated that after the accident he went home because of pain in his stomach. He also stated that he informed Mishrilal brother of the deceased that the accident was caused by the jeep bearing No. D. L. V. 4818. However, Mishrilal has not been examined to corroborate the statement of this witness. Further this witness gave the number of the jeep after refreshing his memory from piece of paper which he brought in the Court. It don not appear that the number of the jeep was mentioned either in the first information report or at any stage during police investigation. The first information report has not been filed. This witness further stated that in his statement to the police he has disclosed the number of the jeep but he admitted that he was not examined by the police in the Criminal case. Ghisalal (A. W. 3) also did not disclose to any one the number of the jeep by which the accident was caused. Although he went to the police station he did not lodge the report nor he stated to the police that he was an eye witness to the accident. According to both these witnesses a watchman of the Fulkothi, Indore was also at the spot when the accident took place; but he was not examined. Both these witnesses Suresh and Ghisalal could not give the description of the driver or the other person who had occupied the jeep. Further according to them the deceased was taken in the same jeep to the M. Y. Hospital but none from the hospital has been examined to prove that the deceased was taken to the hospital by anyone of the occupants of the jeep. The driver of the jeep was examined before the Tribunal and he denied that the accident was caused by his jeep. No other evidence was adduced in the case. In the circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by the Tribunal in holding that it has not been proved that the accident was caused by the jeep belonging to the respondent No. 2 or by a jeep which was being driven at the time of the accident by the respondent No. 1. In the circumstances there is no ground for interfering with the award of the Tribunal dismissing the claims of the appellants. Appeal dismissed.