Judgment:
C.P. Sen, J.
1. Appellant by Shri P.C. Naik.
2. Respondents by Shri R.R. Jaiswal.
3. They are beard OR the question of admission.
4. This L.P.A. has been preferred against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 22-8-86, whereby an appeal preferred by the appellant against the award dated 16-1-1986, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, in Claims Case No. 44/82, was dismissed summarily.
5. Before dealing with the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellant. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. it would be necessary to give in a nutshell the necessary facts. One Dashrath Patel met with an accident on 1-6-81 with a tractor owned by respondent No. 6 Mohanlal. A claim petition was filed by respondents 1 to 5 who are the heirs of deceased Dashrath Patel. This claim petition was contested by Mohanlal, respondent No. 6 and the appellant. It was, however, allowed by the Tribunal and an award in the sum of Rs. 29,000.00 was passed in favour of respondents 1 to 5. It is against the award that the appeal which has been dismissed by the order which is the subject matter of the present L.P.A., was preferred and was dismissed.
6. Two points have been urged by learned Counsel for the appellant. The first was that the Tribunal had not recorded any categorical finding acceding the case of the claimant-respondents that the accident had taken place in the manner stated by them, namely that the deceased was standing on the road side and was hit by the tractor resulting in his death. It is true that the Tribunal has not recorded any categorical finding on this point and has stated in para 11 of the award that the actual position appears to be that either the deceased was run over by the tractor while he was standing on the road side, or the non-applicant permitted him to sit on the tractor himself and he fell down due to rash driving and sudden turning of the tractor. The Tribunal took the view that in either case, the accident took place due to the negligence of respondent No. 6 Mohanlal who was the owner of the tractor and was also driving it.
7. So far as this submission is concerned, it may be pointed out that no evidence whatsoever was led on behalf of the appellant before the Tribunal. The case of the claimant-respondents in the claim petition was that the deceased was standing on the road side and was hit by the tractor resulting in his death. So far as Mohanlal is concerned, his case, on the other hand. was that the deceased wanted to board the running tractor and in the process, fell down and received the injuries resulting in his death.
8. So far as the case of respondent Mohanlal is concerned, the Tribunal has specifically held that he had failed to establish his case. The statements of Mohanlal and his witnesses have been disbelieved by the Tribunal. The finding referred to earlier was recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of the F.I.R. which was lodged shortly after the accident. In it, it had been stated that the deceased was sitting on the tractor and fell down due to the rash driving of Mohanlal. It would thus be seen that it was not the case of either Mohanlal or of the appellant that the deceased was sitting on the tractor and fell down due to rash driving. The appellant had not set up and proved any case on the point and the case of Mohanlal was disbelieved. The inconsistency pointed out by the Tribunal is in the stand taken in the F.I.R. and the case set up in the claim petition.
9. So far as the F.I.R. is concerned, suffice it to point out that the statements made on oath on behalf of the claimants and their witnesses, show that the deceased was standing on the road side and was hit by the tractor resulting in his death.
10. From the award of the Tribunal, it does not transpire that the F.I.R. was lodged by any of the claimants. Apparently more weight could not be added on the facts stated in the F I.R. than the statements on oath of the witnesses produced by the claimant-respondents. The case set up by Mohanlal having been specifically disbelieved, it was indeed a case where the statements on oath of the witnesses produced on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 stood almost unrebutted and in our opinion, there was no reason to disbelieve them. On the basis of those statements, it is apparent that the claimant-respondents had succeeded in establishing that the deceased was standing on the road side when he was hit by the tractor of the respondent Mohanlal, resulting in his death.
11. The second submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant was that Mohanlal who was driving the tractor, did not have a driving licence at the time of accident. This submission is based on a driving licence which is said to have been filed by Mohanlal, which indicates that the driving licence was issued on 5-6-1981. It was urged by learned Counsel for the appellant that when the licence was granted on 5-6-81, he could not have a licence on 1-6-1981 when the accident took place. Suffice it to say as regards this argument that the said driving licence which is said to have been filed by Mohanlal, has not been proved by anyone, nor has it been exhibited. It has been placed on record with a note that the document was proved. In this state of affairs, the said document cannot be looked into. Indeed, not having been proved, it cannot be said to be a part of the record.
12. The only other evidence which remains on record is the statement on oath of Mohanlal. In his statement, he has specifically stated that he had a driving licence on the date of the accident. He was not cross-examined on this point on behalf of the appellant, nor did the appellant produce any evidence to indicate that on the date of the accident, Mohanlal did not have the driving licence. Consequently we have no reason to disbelieve the uncontroverted at statement of Mohanlal that he had driving licence on the date of accident. The second submission also made by learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.
13. No other point was raised.
14. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.