IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.47 of 2002 JAYNARAYAN RAI, Son of Harihar Rai, Resident of Village – Turahapatti Tola Garabhua, P.S. – Sanichari (Chanpatiya), District – West Champaran. ………… O.P. …………… Appellant. Versus 1. RAJA MISHRA, S/O. Kuber Mishra. 2. Rampati Devi, W/O. Raja Mishra. Both residents of village – Turahapatti, Tola Garabhua, P.S.- Sanichari (Chanpatiya), District – West Champaran. …………… Petitioner ……. Respondent. ------------------ 15/ 24.08.2010 This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd September, 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal – cum – 1st Additional District Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah by which he has ordered that the claimant is entitled to Rs.46,000/0 with 6% interest from 20.01.1988 to 01.04.1992 form the owner Jay Narayan Rai as compensation and the amount be paid within 30 days failing which the claimant shall be entitled for interest @ 9% till the realization. From perusal of the records it appears that the claim petition was preferred by the claimant alleging therein that the deceased Manoj Kumar Mishra son of Raja Mishra while going to his school as a Class IV student, got accident and ran over by the tractor causing death and Jay Narayan Rai was the driver cum owner of the said tractor. The - 2 - vehicle number has been mentioned as BRE 2765 as tractor. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that the tractor bearing no. BRE 2765 is a tractor which does not belong to him and the tractor which belongs to him bears no. BRE 2765 and the tractor which bears registration no. BRE 2765 belongs to the East Champaran and further that a criminal case was instituted against him for the said accident and has been acquitted and has contended that in the evidence some of the witnesses have given different version such as colour and other details having variation in their evidence and hence the complaint has not established. However, from perusal of the records it appears that earlier the claim petition was dismissed by order dated 01.04.1992 on the ground that the said vehicle BHE 2765 was not involved as in the claim petition there is mention that the tractor which met with the accident was having registration no. BRE 2765 was set aside in M.A. No. 73 of 1992 and remanded the case for consideration afresh. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, - 3 - contended that the tractor which has been said to be met with the accident is BHE 2765. However, the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 1 shows that the vehicle which met with the accident was BHE 2765 about which the fardbeyan was given by the petitioner Raja Mishra that his son was got seated over the tractor and while his son was being got down from the tractor and thereafter the driver of the tractor Jay Narayan Rai ran over the tractor and the First Informant Report specifically mentioned which is the basis of the suit stated above mentioned the tractor no. BHE 2765. The First Informant Report also mentions the tractor no. BHE 2765 and further the case of the claimant that it was the driver who was Jay Narayan Rai of the said tractor who was driving the tractor itself established that the tractor involved in the accident was this tractor BHE 2765 and merely mentioning by some witness that the variation in telling the colour of the tractor is a minor variation which could not dispute the fact established that the vehicle involved was being driven by the owner-cum-driver causing injury and hence under the facts and circumstances I do not find any illegality and irregularity when there is clear - 4 - evidence of the witnesses that the accident took place by the said tractor while Jay Narayan Rai the owner cum driver who is the appellant was the person who was driving the tractor. The victim got injured and succumbed to injury as per the evidence of P.W. 8 and P.W. 3 and mere difference of R and H in the registration number of the tractor at some places may not infer that some other tractor was involved and hence I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the impugned order to interfere with it and hence I do not find any merit in this miscellaneous appeal and the miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)