Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Sukhdev Singh, who was the driver-cum-owner of the offending tractor at the time of the accident, has filed this appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') on a claim petition filed by the respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act'), whereby, they have been awarded Rs. 3,25,000/- as compensation with interest.
2. In this case, on 26.6.2002, Jarnail Singh deceased along with others was coming to his village Chotian from Amritsar in a Maruti Car, which was being driven by him. At about 3.30 p.m., when he reached the area of village Harike, one Swaraj-735 Tractor, which was being driven by the appellant came from the opposite side in a zig zag manner and struck against the car of Jarnail Singh. As a result of which Jarnail Singh and other occupants of the car received multiple injuries. However, Jarnail Singh succumbed to his injuries at the spot. The accident was witnessed by Sohan Singh s/o Achhar Singh resident of village Harike, Sukhmander Singh son of Jarnail Singh and Dev Raj son of Karam Chand.
3. On account of death of Jarnail Singh in the said accident, his legal representatives filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. The appellant contested the claim petition and averred that at the time of the alleged accident, he was not driving the offending vehicle and the same was standing and the deceased himself struck his car in the tractor. It is alleged that the deceased himself was negligent for the alleged accident.
4. After taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties, the Tribunal has decided issue No. 1 with regard to the negligence in favour of the claimants, and it was held that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor trolla, which was being driven by the appellant. On issue No. 2 regarding quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,25,000/- to the claimants, who are widow and four children of the deceased, while taking monthly dependency of the claimants as Rs. 2,700/-, out of the carry home salary of Rs. 4,156/- of the deceased. As the deceased was 50 years of age, therefore, multiplier of 10 was applied. As the tractor was not insured, the driver, who was the driver-cum-owner of the tractor was held liable to pay the compensation.
5. Counsel for the appellant argued that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant is illegal and contrary to the evidence available on the record. He submitted that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the stand taken by the appellant that the deceased himself was negligent for the alleged accident. Learned Counsel further submitted that at the time of accident the tractor was standing on the road and it was the deceased who struck his car against the standing tractor trolla.
6. After hearing counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The factum of accident with the tractor trolla has been admitted by the appellant in his written statement, however, while appearing in the witness box, he has stated that no accident had taken place by his tractor trolla. In order to prove their case, the claimants have examined AW1 Dev Raj, who was the eye witness of the accident. He has categorically stated that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor trolla and at that time, the appellant was driving the tractor. In spite of his lengthy/cross-examination nothing contrary could be brought out from his testimony. The claimants have also placed on record copy of the FIR as Ex. A3. In rebuttal, appellant examined RW-1 Sohan Singh, who was the author of the FIR Ex. P3. He has stated that the car had met with an accident by hitting a stationary tractor. He has also examined RW-2 Charanjit Singh, who was running a private clinic has stated that on 26.6.2002, appellant-Sukhdev Singh was present in his clinic at about 10.00 a.m. along with his son as his son received injuries due to over turning of the trolla. He further stated that on the same day at about 4.00 p.m. another patient was brought by some persons but the patient had already expired.
7. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal relied upon the statement of AW-1 Dev Raj, the eye witness and discarded the statements of RW-1 Sohan Singh and RW-2 Charanjit Singh as not trustworthy. It has been noticed that the First Information Report was recorded by RW-1 Sohan Singh, in which it was categorically stated by him that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor trolla but subsequently in order to help the appellant, he deposed in his favour contrary to his first version given to the police. The FIR recorded by the said witness has been duly proved on record. Statement of RW-2 has been discarded on the ground that the said witness was having diploma in Ayurvedic and was running a private clinic. It has also been observed that the said witness has not produced any record regarding the alleged treatment given to the son of the appellant. It has been found that merely on the basis of the such testimony by a witness, it cannot be said that the appellant was not present at the spot at the time of alleged accident. The appellant also took contrary stand during the case which reflects on his trust-worthiness. In his written statement the appellant has admitted the accident whereas when he appeared in the witness box he has stated that no accident had taken place with his Tractor.
8. Thus, in my opinion, the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant. The said finding of fact is hereby affirmed.
Counsel for the appellant further argued that after the death of the husband of the respondent No. 1, she is getting family pension but the Tribunal while awarding the compensation has not taken into consideration the said factor. This Court in Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab has held that the tort feasor cannot get the benefit of pension being received by the widow and children of the deceased, therefore, the said factor was rightly not taken into consideration by the Tribunal while assessing and awarding compensation to the claimants.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.