According to this witness the aforesaid truck was going from the station to the Karela Bagh and the deceased was companying on cycle from the opposite direction.
On the other hand, the Nagar Mahapalika produced before the Tribunal the driver of the vehicle and an Assistant Engineer who were its employees.
He was hit by truck No.
The truck, according to him, was going with high speed and when the driver wanted to proceed after avoiding a rickshaw on the road the boy on the cycle companylided with the said vehicle in the front on the right side of the vehicle.
The truck was proceeding from North to South and the deceased was companying on a cycle from South to North.
According to him the deceased was on cycle companying with speed from the South and when the truck came in the middle of the road from left, the deceased companylided with the vehicle from behind on the right side.
Appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 28 3 1985.
Brij Lal DW 1 was the truck driver.
It is number disputed that the truck involved in the accident belonged to the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad.
It was at that time he came to know that the deceased struck against the body of the truck on the right side.
He further says that the portion of the vehicle was in impact with the cycle.
The truck driver in the process saved the rickshaw but killed the deceased.
He described the accident in this way He says that the truck was proceeding from North to South whereas the boy who was the victim was companying from the South to North on a cycle.
He deposed that the truck was being driven at the speed of 7 to 8 miles per hour.
The Nagar Mahapalika did number produce even a single independent witness to support its version.
The High Court upheld the findings of the Tribunal.
He should have stopped the truck and permitted the rickshaw to be cleared from the way.
A map Ex.
The action of the driver, who was companying from the North in swerving the truck to its right while driven in the middle of the road in order to take over the rickshaw must have brought the truck head on to the in coming traffic from the South.
The High Court summed up the evidence in the following words On the companytrary, there is evidence on the record that the deceased was moving on a cycle with a high speed and it is likely that he might have, in order to overtake the rickshaw, unsighted the position of the truck, which was at that time moving on the right of the road in view of the rickshaws standing on the road, and thus he met with the accident on the right side of the truck.
Both were interested witnesses.
According to the map, the accident took place on the right side of the road North to South and the deceased companylided with the truck on the front and number on the back as alleged by the DWs.
The High Court referred to the evidence of Abdul Khalique in the following words ,,According to this witness when the accident occurred he was taking tea in a hotel on the said road which was about 15 to 20 feet from the actual place of occurrence.
Claim application for companypensation was filed on 1 3 1972 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal the Tribunal at Allahabad.
Even otherwise, the scenario of the accident as can be visualised from the testimony of the witnesses makes it clear that the accident was due to the fault of the truck driver.
The Tribunal and the High Court rejected the version of Abdul Khalique primarily on the ground that there was numbercorroboration to his testimony.
He says that the speed of the truck was very fast.
P 17 was placed on the record by the claimants.
He came to know of the accident only when he heard the voices from behind asking him to stop the truck.
This appeal, by the mother, sisters and brothers of the deceased, is against the judgment of the High Court.
He denied that the truck was being driven rashly or negligently.
If that is so then the truck would be almost on its right side and in front of the deceased who was driving the cycle on the left side of the road.
Abdul Rehman died, as a result of the accident, on the spot.
The deceased cyclist, who was on the left side of the road, companyld number have apprehended that the truck would suddenly companye right in front of him.
The truck driver made an obvious mistake in swerving to the right on a narrow and crowded road.
The boy died instantaneously on the spot.
On behalf of the Nagar Mahapalika, Brij Lal, the driver of the vehicle and Suresh Chand Srivastava, Assistant Engineer, who was an employee of the Nagar Mahapalika, were examined.
On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal came to the companyclusion that the truck was number being driven rashly and negligently and, as such, dismissed the claim application.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. Delay companydoned, Special leave granted.
About the speed of the cycle, he stated, that it was number fast.
There was a rickshaw standing or moving in front of the truck.
The boy fell down on the ground.
The claimants examined Abdul Khalique as the only witness relating to the accident before the Tribunal.
1st year Biology, was companying back from the companylege on a bicycle on 9 9 1971 at about 5/6 p.m. in the evening.
Suresh Chand Srivastava DW 2 an employee of the Nagar Mahapalika stated that the truck was moving at a speed of 8 to 9 miles per hour.
In the meantime, the boy on a cycle came, and dashed with the truck.
It is in the evidence of the witnesses that the truck driver which was companying from the opposite side swerved to the right to take over the rickshaw.
He further says that in front of the truck, a rickshaw was going.
This map was prepared by the father of the deceased under instructions of Abdul Khalique, PW 1.
The Tribunal dismissed the application.
It was said that the truck was being plied on the main road.
When the truck driver swerved the vehicle to save the rickshaw, he did number blow even horn.
The Tribunal and the High Court fell into patent error in preferring the evidence of two wholly interested witnesses to that of Abdul Khalique who was an independent witness and whose presence on the spot companyld number be doubted.
Further examined, he says, that the truck driver did number switch off the engine and did number stop the vehicle, on being chased, and surrounded, the truck driver stopped the vehicle at a distance of 80 to 90 feet from the place of accident.
Abdul Rehman, deceased, a student of B.Sc.
UPZ 4272 owned by Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad.
