Judgment:
Deepak Verma, J.
1. This judgment shall also govern disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 303 of 1998 filed by Shiv Kumar and Anr. as the said appeal also arises out of the impugned award, passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhabua.
2. By the impugned award two claim petitions arising out of one accident have been disposed of by the learned Claims Tribunal.
3. That on account of road accident on 25th January, 1987, one Radheyshyam and Rajendra Kumar lost their lives. According to the claimants Radheysham and Rajendra Kumar were travelling on a motor cycle bearing registration No. MBE-9713 and were returning to Jhabua from Anas Nursery. At the relevant time Radheyshyam was driving the motor cycle and Rajendra Kumar was travelling on the same as a pillion rider. No sooner the motor cycle reached Kayaraward, then truck bearing registration No. GRY-3830 coming from Gujarat side and going towards Jhabua, hit the motor cycle from behind. As a result of accident, Rajendra Kumar died on the spot and Radheshyam, who, was badly injured, was taken to Jhabua hospital. Before Radheshyam could reach hospital, he also died.
4. First Information Report was lodged by Shiv Kumar, father of Rajendra Kumar. The L.Rs. of deceased Radheshyam filed a claim petition, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 5.00 lacs on the ground, that at the time of accident, Radheshyam was only 40 years of age and was working as Upper Division Clerk in Co-operative Bank, Jhabua and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 1,302.75 p. The claim petition filed by L.Rs. of Radheshyam was registered as Claim Case No. 19 of 1987.
5. Similarly, the parents of Rajendra Kumar also filed a claim petition, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,60,000/- for the death of Rajendra Kumar, who was a student of B.Sc. Pt. II. It was also alleged, that claimants had, no other issue except deceased Rajendra Kumar and on account of untimely death, they have suffered immense mental pain and suffering. It was also alleged that the motor cycle belonged to Rajendra Kumar, which was completely damaged in the accident, therefore, they claimed a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards damage caused to the motor cycle.
6. In support of the claim petition, Shiv Kumar examined himself, Saifuddin as A.W. 3 and another eye-witness as A.W. 6 Babulal.
7. According to Saifuddin (A.W. 3), he along with Babulal (A.W. 6) was going to Jhabua to attend a political function. While they were going, they had witnessed the said accident caused by truck bearing registration No. GRY-3830. Babulal (A.W. 6) has also stated that he had witnessed the accident.
8. The learned Tribunal after analysing the evidence and the material brought on record, came to the conclusion that evidence of Saifuddin (A.W. 3) and Babulal (A.W. 6) who are alleged to be the eye-witnesses, do not inspire confidence to hold that the accident was caused by truck bearing registration No. GRY-3830 and, thus, rejected both the claim petitions.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for appellants in both the appeals, was highly critical about the aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal. He has taken us through the entire evidence and submitted, that from the deposition of Saifuddin and Babulal (A.W. 3 and A.W. 6) it is clear that the offending vehicle was the truck bearing registration No. GRY-3830. According to the learned Counsel for appellants, the Tribunal erred in holding that accident was not caused by the said offending truck.
10. We have carefully gone through the evidence and especially the deposition of Saifuddin (A.W. 3) and Babulal (A.W. 6). From the evidence of these two witnesses, it is clear that they had not witnessed any accident, which led to the death of Radheshyam and Rajendra Kumar. In fact, if they had really seen the accident then their conduct, as is clear from their depositions, was hightly unnatural. According to them, they were in a hurry to attend the political function and, therefore, they just informed some Policemen at the bus-stand Police Chowki. They attended the political function where number of police officers were present, but, they never disclosed the fact of accident to any one. They had not even contacted the family members of the deceased persons after the accident, either on the same day or immediately thereafter.
11. According to Babulal (A.W. 6), he had noted down the number of offending vehicle on a slip of paper which he has lost by the time he came to depose before the Tribunal. He claims that despite the loss of slip of paper, he remembered the number of offending vehicle, despite the lapse of 10 years' from the date of accident.
12. During cross-examination, he was confronted with his case diary statement (Ex. D-2-C) and he could not offer any plausible explanation to the part of the statement marked A to A. According to Ex. D-2-C, Babulal and Saifuddin both had stayed in Kundanpur, whereas, Saifuddin (A.W. 3) in his deposition, had stated that Babulal after dropping him (Saifuddin) at the political r,ally, had proceeded ahead. The evidence of Saifuddin and Babulal is apparently false and is untrustworthy and the Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court, has rightly disbelieved these two witnesses.
13. If Babulal and Saifuddin had really seen the accident, then, at least, one of them could have lodged the First Information Report giving the registration number of the offending vehicle, or, they could have at least disclosed the registration number of the offending vehicle to Shiv Kumar, who had reached the spot immediately after the accident. Shiv Kumar has lodged the First Information Report (Ex. R 5) against an unknown vehicle.
14. Saifuddin and Babulal (A.W. 3 and A.W. 6) had stated that they had disclosed the registration number of the offending vehicle to police constable. That constable has also not been examined. Thus, the evidence of these two witnesses is nothing, but an afterthought to overreach the difficulty faced by the claimants to establish that the accident was caused by the truck bearing registration No. GRY-3830. In absence of evidence, the Tribunal has rightly held that the truck bearing registration No. GRY-3830 was not involved in the accident. Since, no other vehicle was involved in the accident, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petitions preferred by L.Rs. of Radheyshyam and Rajendra Kumar.
15. In our considered opinion, no illegality and infirmity can be attributed to the impugned award passed by the Tribunal below.
16. In the result, both the appeals being devoid of any merit and substance are, hereby, dismissed but with no order as to costs.
17. Let a copy of the judgment be retained in M.A. No. 303 of 1998.