IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (MVA) No. 123 of 2006. Reserved on: 24.11.2009. Decided on: 25.11.2009. __________________________________________________ Dhanvir Singh … Appellant. Versus Deep Chand … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. R.R. Rahi, Advocate vice Mr. Ajay Dhiman, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. The appellant, who is the owner of tractor No. HP-17-4329, has been held liable to compensate the respondent whose father died while traveling on the tractor involved in the accident, challenges the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Sirmour District at Nahan on the ground that his tractor was never involved in the accident and that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal are against the evidence on record. It is pleaded by the claimant that on 4.9.2004 the tractor belonging to the appellant while being driven by late Kashmir Singh on which the father of the respondent was traveling met with an accident at 9.30 a.m.. The deceased was injured and later on succumbed to the injuries sustained. The learned Tribunal decided the petition in favour of the claimant-respondent rejecting the contention of the appellant herein that on the date of accident the tractor was in the workshop belonging to one Malkhan Singh and between 2.9.2004 to 6.9.2004, it was being repaired and therefore, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2 the question of the tractor being involved in the accident did not arise at all. The learned Tribunal relied upon the evidence of PW-2 Chet Ram, who was an eye witness to the accident, and held that considering the totality of the evidence it was worthy of credence. The claim petition was allowed. The learned Tribunal also took into consideration Ext. PW-3/A which is FIR lodged with respect to the accident in question. On the evidence of RW-1/appellant, the Court holds that his evidence is not worthy of credence when he says that he was driving the tractor and that Kashmir Singh was never driving the tractor or engaged for this purpose. The statement of RW-1 is contradicted with the statement of RW-2 Malkhan Singh who states that the tractor was being driven by Kashmir Singh. On the totality of the evidence on record, I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which has properly assessed the evidence. The testimony of RW-1, which has rightly been rejected, has been contradicted by Malkhan Singh (RW-2). One other fact needs to be noticed is that the appellant has not produced on record any document to show that the tractor was in fact undergoing repairs on the date of the accident or any other date nor any record has been produced from the shop of the mechanic to establish the fact whether the tractor was road worthy or not. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. November 25, 2009. (cr) 3