IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 574 of 2005 Smt. Usha Devi & another … Appellants Versus Union of India & another … Respondents Sri B.P. Nautiyal, Advocate, for the appellants Sri Arvind Vashist, Asstt. Solicitor General, for respondents Dated: April 10, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 11.11.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 28 of 2004. Briefly stated the facts, according to the claimants, are that on 9.3.2004 when deceased- Pooran Singh was starting his Scooter No. U.T.Y. 6338 in front of shop of Ramji Lal at Najibabad Road, Kotdwar, meanwhile a truck No. 9 D-100680 belonging to Garhwal Rifles Centre, Lansedown, came from the direction of Kotdwar and hit the scooter, due to which deceased-Pooran Singh fell down and sustained injuries and he died on the way to Hospital. The claimants have pleaded that deceased was an expert and famous confectioner and used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month and deceased was 46 years of age at the time of accident. The claimants thus claimed for a sum of Rs.12,25,000/- as compensation. The opposite parties no. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement refuting the contents of claim petition. They took additional plea that claim petition has been filed on wrong facts and vehicle in question was not involved in the alleged accident. They denied the date, time and place of accident and pleaded that their vehicle was not there at that time. They also pleaded that scooterist himself fell down from scooter and sustained injuries as he was not having helmet in regulated and notified area. They further pleaded that deceased was taken to Hospital Jagat Singh of Garhwal Rifles Regiment Centre in humanity and by chance. The claimants wanted to get compensation by them in improper way, and therefore, the claim petition filed against them was liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal after having considered the material available before it and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.50,000/- by holding that it is a case of ‘no fault liability’. The amount so awarded is payable by the Government of India, along with an interest @ 9% per annum. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the claimants-appellants have preferred the appeal before this Court. Heard Sri B.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, Sri Arvind Vashist, learned Assistant Solicitor General, for respondents and perused the record. The case of the claimants in the claim petition is that deceased-Pooran Singh was starting his scooter before the shop of one Ramji Lal and meanwhile a truck came from the direction of Kotdwar and hit the scooter due to which Pooran Singh fell down and sustained injuries. When the deceased-Pooran Singh was taken to hospital the doctor declared him dead. The claimants in order to support their case produced two witnesses, namely, Manoj Kumar son of deceased-Pooran Singh and another Banarasi Saini (PW-2), who is the eye witness of the accident. PW-1 Manoj Kumar has verified the contents of claim petition, but PW-2, who is the eye witness, has clearly deposed in his statement that the scooter was standing by the road side before the shop of Ramji Lal and deceased- Pooran Singh was kicking the scooter to start, meanwhile a truck belonging to Army came over there rashly and negligently and hit the scooter due to which Pooran Singh fell down and sustained injuries on his head. When the injured was taken to hospital the doctor declared him dead. This eye witness has been cross examined in detail but nothing has been deducted in his cross examination which may suggest that this witness is either telling a lie or was not present at the spot at the time of accident. Therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the version of the claimants. The Motor Accident Claim Petition is tried in a summary manner before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has to consider this aspect as to whether the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently and on account of the same the injured sustained injuries and subsequently he succumbed to those injuries and secondly as to whether who is liable to pay the amount of compensation and how much, to the claimants. It appears that the Tribunal has given undue importance to the statements of witnesses produced by the respondents. It cannot be ignored that the witnesses produced by the respondents are certainly interested witnesses. The Tribunal should have taken into consideration this aspect that in view of the dictum of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ what should be the situation at the spot and only after visualizing this aspect the Tribunal should have come to the conclusion as to whether the driver of offending vehicle was rash and negligent and on account of the same the truck hit the scooter due to which Pooran Singh sustained injuries and subsequently he succumbed to those injuries. The Tribunal has fell in error in discussing the evidence adduced by the respondents in detail as well as ignoring the evidence adduced by the claimants in support of their case. The Tribunal should have considered the case of the claimants first and then should have recorded reasoning for discarding the version of the claimants which the Tribunal by way of impugned judgment and award has not done. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and award suffers with infirmity and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and direct the Tribunal concerned to decide the matter afresh in the light of evidence adduced by the parties. As the matter is very old, therefore, the Tribunal is directed to decide the case expeditiously and without causing any unreasonable delay. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP