1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Smt. Sushila & Ors. (S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.872/2010) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Date of Order :: May 03, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Vigyan Shah for the appellant. The appellant has challenged the award dated 25.03.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”), whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,31,995/- to the claimants. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, Brij Mohan himself. For, both according to the FIR and the site plan, the offending vehicle (Trailer) was standing on the correct side of the road, and it was Brij Mohan who had driven his mini-truck into the back of the standing trailer. Thus, 2 the negligence was clearly that of Brij Mohan's. Secondly, the learned Tribunal has ignored the cross-examination of Rajesh (A.W.2) who claims to be an eyewitness of the accident. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Rajesh (A.W.2), in his testimony, clearly states that he works in a hotel which was 100 feet from the place of the accident. According to him, on the fateful night, since there was not a single customer at the hotel, he was sitting and looking at the passing vehicles. According to him, while the mini-truck was moving, suddenly the driver of the offending vehicle (Trailer) hit the breaks. Consequently, the mini-truck of Brij Mohan hit the back of the trailer. Resultantly, Brij Mohan was seriously injured. He further claims that he rushed to the place of the accident. The injured gave him the mobile numbers of his relatives. He further claims that he not only informed the relatives, but also informed the police about the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in his cross-examination he admits the fact that he did not lodge the FIR, nor his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. He was not the witness of the site-plan. He did not produce any certificate to show that he was employed at the hotel and he does not tell the week day when the accident took 3 place. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the veracity of this witness becomes doubtful. The contention of the learned counsel is unacceptable. For, merely because, Rajesh (A.W.2) has not lodged the FIR, although he had informed the police on the phone, merely because, his statement has not been recorded by the police, merely because he is not a witness of the site-plan, these facts do not dilute the veracity of the witness. Moreover, merely because the witness cannot remember the day of the week when the accident took place, this fact also does not create doubts about the truthfulness of the testimony. Lastly, merely because he has not produced a certificate showing that he was working at the hotel, such an omission does not demolish his testimony. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate that the witness was either related to the deceased or was an interest or inimical witness. Thus, he was neither an interested witness, nor he had any mala fide intention against the Insurance Company. Since the witness is neither an interested person, nor he has any mala fide intention against the Insurance Company, there is no reason for doubting his testimony. Since, according to the eye-witness, Rajesh (A.W.2), the offending vehicle was not stationed, as claimed by the driver of the 4 offending vehicle, but was in motion, since according to this witness, the offending vehicle was suddenly halted by its driver, therefore, the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle (trailer), is writ large. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in concluding that the negligence lay on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle (trailer) and not on the part of the deceased. Moreover, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in relying upon the testimony of the eyewitness in concluding that the negligence did not lie on the part of the deceased. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.ASopa/-