Skip to content


Shiv Dass Vs. Dayawati and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2(1985)ACC324
AppellantShiv Dass
RespondentDayawati and ors.
Excerpt:
- - in spite of as many as four witnesses being examined by the claimant the tribunal was not satisfied that they have been successful in proving the involvement of the truck no......the slip is forth coming nor pw 1 has stated that any such slip was received by him. obviously, the father was not present when the accident took place. pws 2 and 3 in their statements do not give the full details of the number-plate but only repeated the number. none of them states that it was dll 4273. in fact pw 3 was himself confused as he said that probably the truck number was ust 4723. in this state of affairs the claims tribunal was justified in not placing reliance on their statements and preferring to rely upon the denial of the opposite parties. i find a little scope in interfering with the findings recorded by the claims tribunal.5. in the result the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. however, keeping the circumstances of the case in view the parties are left to.....
Judgment:

N.N. Mittal, J.

1. This F.A.F.O. is directed against the decision of the Claims Tribunal, Meerut dismissing the claim put forth by the claimant-appellant whose son Shiv Kumar is alleged to have betn crushed to death by truck No. DLL 4273 at about 10.45 A.M. on 25-4-1971 on Delhi-Hapur road near the town of Pilakhwa. A claim for Rs. 20,000/- was filed by the father of the deceased and mother was also impleaded as one of the opposite parties.

2. The owners of the truck denied the very fact of their truck being involved in any such accident and also denied the liability to pay his claim.

3. The only controversy raised before the Tribunal was as to whether the truck in question was involved in the accident. In spite of as many as four witnesses being examined by the claimant the Tribunal was not satisfied that they have been successful in proving the involvement of the truck No. DLL 4273 in the accident. It, therefore, dismissed the claim petition. The claimant, feeling aggrieved, has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties but inspite of appellant vigorous efforts to show that the truck which caused the accident was DLL 4273 has not been able to satisfy me on this question. The FIR was lodged three days after the death PW 2, who claims to have been in the company of the deceased at the time of accident stated that the number of the truck was noted down by him immediately after the accident on the ground which was later on copied on a slip or paper, which was allegedly given by him to the claimant's father. Neither the slip is forth coming nor PW 1 has stated that any such slip was received by him. Obviously, the father was not present when the accident took place. PWs 2 and 3 in their statements do not give the full details of the number-plate but only repeated the number. None of them states that it was DLL 4273. In fact PW 3 was himself confused as he said that probably the truck number was UST 4723. In this state of affairs the Claims Tribunal was justified in not placing reliance on their statements and preferring to rely upon the denial of the opposite parties. I find a little scope in interfering with the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal.

5. In the result the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, keeping the circumstances of the case in view the parties are left to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //