J.C. Verma, J.
1. The present Misc. Appeal has been preferred challenging the award dated 31.3.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran in MACT Case No. 8/96 whereby the claim application has been dismissed in toto.
2. The claimants were parents of the deceased Devashish, who is alleged to have died in the accident on 17.9.1995. with a tractor make Ford 3610, being driven by driver respondent No. 1 Haribhagwan and owned by respondent No. 2 Kishangopal and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are insurer of the tractor. It was alleged that the accident had been caused because of negligence of the driver. The claimants had stated that the deceased was earning an amount Rs. 5,000/- per month from his business of photography and agriculture work. The claimants claimed an amount Rs. 28,45,000/- under different headings.
3. The private respondents had disputed the occurrence of the accident and denied their liability of compensation. The Insurance Company had denied the liability of compensation. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim application of the appellants.
4. It is the contention of the appellant that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the evidence produced including the statements recorded by the police Under Section 161, Cr.P.C. of Raghuvir Singh, which Raghuvir Singh was produced as A.W. 4. It is further submitted that even though initially the police registered the case Under Section 302, I.P.C. but, later on, completed the investigation and filed the challan Under Section 304-A, I.P.C.
5. The Tribunal had framed the required issues in regard to accident, negligence and the compensation. The issue No. 1 related to the effect whether the deceased had died because of accident with the tractor make Ford 3610 being driven rashly and negligently. Whereas the issue No. 3 was framed to the effect whether the deceased had not died because of accident with the tractor, but he died because of accident of Hero Puch No. RJ-13/M-2813 as he was driving the same after taking liquor. The issue No. 4 was framed to the effect that what was the effect of recording of FIR Under Section 302, I.P.C. The Tribunal had found that the claimant had produced only one witness Raghubir Singh, who could throw some light on the accident. The Tribunal observed that the claimants had not been able to prove the negligence.
6. Counsel for appellant had produced certified copies of the relevant documents. It was mentioned in the claim application that Devashish Mandal, aged 28 years, went alongwith Raghuvir Singh, when they were going towards Nahargarh on their Hero Puch moped, the moped had gone out of order. One tractor, without number, make Ford-3610 came from wrong side; Raghuvir Singh had given signal to tractor driver for the purpose of taking lift. The tractor driver, who was coming with fast speed diverted the tractor towards other side and caused the accident resulting in death of Devashish. In the claim application, which was filed after four months of the accident, the number of the tractor was mentioned as MP-08/A-7893 along with the details of driver, owner and Insurance Company of the tractor.
7. The driver and owner of the tractor filed joint reply and stated that the deceased had not died because of the accident with the tractor, but he died because of skidding of Hero moped, which he was driving. Another defence was taken that the deceased was driving the moped after taking liquor and was without any licence. He had fallen himself on the road. The Insurance Company filed the reply and denied the accident. It was stated that the FIR No. 92/95 was recorded and it was a case of murder, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The FIR was recorded on the information of one Narayan, who brought the deceased in his tractor No. RJ-20/A-0374 to the hospital and had informed the police. It was mentioned in the FIR that one injured person was lying on the road; he was unable to speak and had sustained various injuries on his body, on right leg, right knee and right hand. He had found the deceased near one kilometre of Rajpura and he had brought him for treatment. The police recorded the information of its own and initially was of the opinion that it was a case of murder. During investigation the site plan was prepared. The post mortem was conducted and it was opined that the deceased had died because of head injury. There were 7 abrasions and lacerated wounds.
8. Tarak Mandal had been produced as A.W. 1, who is father of the deceased. It is stated that his son had died because of accident and he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month and he was the only source of livelihood. He produced the copies of FIR Ex. P-l, charge sheet Ex. P-2, site plan Ex. P-3 and MLR Ex. P-4. In cross-examination he stated that he was informed of the accident on the next day. The accident had not occurred in his presence. He had no knowledge whether Raghuvir Singh was going with his son or not. He has denied that his son had taken liquor or that he had died because of skidding of the moped. A.W. 2 Tara, mother of the deceased corroborated the facts whatever A.W. 1 had stated. A.W. 3 Surajmal recorded the FIR in police station. He had reported the matter to police and stated that on the night he was going on tractor when Devashish was found. He brought him to the police station. He was accompanied with Narayan, Kabbu, Radhu and Mohan. They had not seen any moped nearby the deceased. He denied about the signs of liquor on the deceased. He stated that he had not stated while recording the FIR that deceased had taken liquor.
9. A.W. 4. Raghuvir Singh is the only material witness. He states that he and Devashish were going on the moped. The moped had gone out of order, therefore, they were going on foot. They saw the tractor Ford-3610, being driven by Hari Bhagwan. They tried to stop the tractor and on reaching near the tractor, took a turn and hit Devashish became unconscious and was unable to move. He denied the suggestion that they had taken liquor.
10. NAW 1 Kishan Gopal, the owner of the tractor was examined. He denied the accident in toto. He admitted that the police had filed the challan against the driver for negligence driving. NAW 2 Hari Bhagwan was also examined. He stated that he possesses valid licence. He denied the accident, but stated that a case of negligence driving is pending against him.
11. In my opinion, the order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous as there is no worthwhile evidence to link the death of deceased with the said accident. It is admitted case that A.W. 3 while going on his tractor had found the body of deceased and brought him to police station. He submitted that initially the police thought that the case is of murder. The only witness which could throw light was A.W. 4 Raghuvir Singh. Admittedly Raghuvir Singh had not sustained any injury. If he was going on moped with the deceased, he could have sustained the injuries and he would have been the first person to inform the police or to make arrangement for stopping any other vehicle or to inform the parents of the deceased about the accident, which he had not done. If they were going on moped and moped had gone out of order, what happened to the moped, is not known. Even the person who reported the matter to police and brought the deceased had not found any moped near around. Even though the challan had been put up against the driver of the tractor, he would be tried on its merits. But in the present case, I agree with the findings of the Tribunal that the claimants have failed to prove the accident with the tractor. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award. I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order of the Tribunal. There is no merit in the Misc. Appeal.
With the above observations, the Misc. Appeal is dismissed.