***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. –

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-driver of tractor-trolley bearing registration No. HIA-6177 being aggrieved by award dated 21.09.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby claim petition preferred by claimants seeking compensation on account of untimely death of Mewa Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased) in the accident dated 08.01.2000, allegedly caused due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trolley bearing registration No. HIA-6177 and truck bearing registration No. PUV-3697, was allowed and appellants-claimants were awarded compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the awarded amount.

2. It was the case of the appellants-claimants that on 08.01.2000, deceased while riding his scooter bearing registration No. HP-12-5501, was going to his village Kiratpur. When he reached near village Manakpur Devi Lal, he was hit by tractor-trolley bearing registration No. HIA-6177, which was being driven by appellant-driver Surinder Singh in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed. On account of the impact, the deceased had fallen on the road and, in the meanwhile, truck bearing registration No. PUV-3697 came from Pinjore side at high speed, being driven rashly and negligently by respondent-driver-Kaka Singh, and crushed the deceased under its tyres. On account of the injuries suffered in the accident, the deceased had succumbed to his injuries.

3. The claimants had filed the claim petition against driver and owner of tractor-trolley bearing registration No. HIA-6177 and driver, owner and Insurance Company of truck bearing registration No. PUV-3697. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by both sides, concluded that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles, i.e. tractor-trolley bearing registration No. HIA-6177 driven by appellant-driver Surinder Singh and truck bearing registration No. PUV-3697 driven by respondent-driver Kaka Singh and held them liable to pay compensation to the extent of 50% each.

4. In order to prove that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles, i.e. tractor-trolley and truck, the appellants-claimants had examined PW-3 Deva Singh, who had claimed to have witnessed the accident dated 08.01.2000 and had lodged FIR Ex. P-2 with the police.

5. While appearing as PW-3, Dev Singh stated that on 08.01.2000, he was going from Pinjore to his village Kirathpur on his scooter bearing registration No. HR-49-5509. When he reached near village Manakpur, Devi Lal crossing, a tractor-trolley bearing registration No. HIA-6177 came from the Nalagarh side. On account of the lights of the tractor-trolley, deceased fell on the road and, in the meanwhile, a truck bearing registration No. PUV-3697 came from the Pinjore side and crushed the deceased as well as his scooter. The said truck also dragged the deceased and the scooter to some distance. PW-3 stated that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent-driver Kaka Singh. He further stated that the driver of the truck fled from the spot after the accident. Thereafter, he went to Police Station, Pinjore, brought the police to the spot and, with the assistance of the police, took deceased to the hospital. However, deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. PW-3 further stated that he had made a statement to the police, on the basis of which FIR No. 5 dated 09.01.2000 Ex. P-2 was registered.

6. Perusal of FIR No. 5 dated 09.01.2000, registered at about 12:30 a.m. under Sections 279/304-A IPC at Police Station Pinjore, shows that the author of the FIR, namely PW-3 Dev Singh had stated that on 08.01.2000, he was going towards his village Kirathpur and, when he reached near village Manakpur Devi Lal crossing, a tractor-trolley being driven in a rash and negligent manner came and struck the scooter of deceased from the side, as a result of which deceased had fallen on the road. In the meanwhile, truck bearing registration No. PUV-3697 came from the Pinjore side, which was also being driven in rash and negligent manner, and crushed the scooter as well as deceased. The author of the FIR further stated that after causing the accident, respondent-driver-Surinder Singh, who was known to him, fled from the spot along with the tractor-trolley. The driver of the truck also fled from the spot after causing the accident.

7. While appearing as PW-3, Dev Singh admitted that deceased was his co-brother. He stated that he could not disclose whether the tractor-trolley had struck the scooter from his side. He further stated that after the accident, he had gone to the Police Station and it was only after the arrival of the police that deceased was taken out from underneath the truck. He claimed that the police had reached the spot within about 10 minutes of the occurrence, as the Police Station was situated at a distance of about one kilometre from the place of occurrence. He further stated that he had witnessed the occurrence from a distance of about 150 yards and had also seen the registration numbers of both the tractor-trolley and the truck at the time of the occurrence. In cross examination, he had stated that both the vehicles had caused the accident by their rash and negligent driving. PW-3 admitted that he wears glasses and was wearing the same at the time of the accident. He, however, stated that he did not know the power of the lenses. He denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the occurrence. He fairly admitted that his long-distance eyesight was weak.

8. Both the drivers of the vehicles appeared as RW-1 and RW-2. While appearing as RW-1, the appellant-driver, in his affidavit Ex. R-1, stated that he was driving tractor-trolley bearing registration No. HIA-6177, owned by appellant-owner Soma Rani. He, however, denied having met with any accident and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was facing trial in the case arising out of FIR No. 5 dated 09.01.2000 registered under Sections 279/304-A IPC.

9. RW-2 Kaka Singh, driver of truck bearing registration No. PUV-3697, also denied his involvement in the accident. He stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, the accident had already taken place and the scooter was lying in the middle of the road. On making inquiries, he came to know that the accident had been caused by a trolley, which had fled from the spot. He also claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. In his cross-examination, however, he admitted that he was also facing trial in the case arising out of the accident dated 08.01.2000.

10. Learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence of PW-3 as well as that of RW-1 and RW-2, concluded that the claimants had succeeded in proving the involvement of both the vehicles in the accident dated 08.01.2000 and that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. The testimony of PW-3 was accepted as reliable, whereas the version put forth by RW-1 and RW-2 was not accepted.

11. On consideration of the pleadings, evidence and arguments raised on behalf of both sides, I am of the view that the conclusion drawn by learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of PW-3 cannot be faulted with. As regards the evidence of RW-1 and RW-2, the same is nothing but a bare denial of their involvement in the accident. Both the drivers, i.e. the driver of the tractor-trolley as well as the driver of the truck, admitted that they were facing trial in connection with the accident in question. FIR No. 5 dated 09.01.2000 was lodged on the statement of PW-3 within 4/5 hours of the occurrence. The FIR was lodged at about 12:30 a.m. on 09.01.2000. Perusal of FIR Ex. P-2 shows that the manner of accident stated by the claimants in the claim petition, as well as the version substantially given by PW-3 in his deposition and in the statement forming the basis of the FIR, is materially consistent. The FIR was lodged promptly and there is no material contradiction between the version contained therein and the evidence of PW-3 if read in totality. Learned Tribunal had, therefore, rightly relied upon the testimony of PW-3 and the contemporaneous version contained in FIR Ex. P-2 while recording a finding regarding the involvement of both the vehicles and their rash and negligent driving.

12. The appellant-driver of the tractor-trolley is challenging the finding recorded by learned Tribunal mainly on the ground that PW-3 Dev Singh had stated a different manner of occurrence in his deposition by asserting that deceased had fallen on the road on account of the lights of the tractor-trolley. It has also been argued that the testimony of PW-3, who admittedly had weak long-distance eyesight and had witnessed the occurrence from a distance of about 150 yards, could not have been relied upon, particularly when he did not state in his examination-in-chief that the tractor-trolley had struck the scooter of deceased.

13. A close examination of the claim petition, the contents of FIR Ex. P-2 and the evidence of PW-3, RW-1 and RW-2, however, makes it clear that the testimony of PW-3, as accepted by learned Tribunal, is materially consistent and reliable. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, his testimony has to be read as a whole and an isolated statement cannot be taken and accepted out of context. The argument raised on behalf of the appellant-driver that the evidence of PW-3 is not probable as he had witnessed the occurrence from a distance of about 150 yards and had weak eyesight, also cannot be accepted. It is worth noticing that PW-3 had clearly stated that he was prescribed glasses for correcting his eyesight and that he was wearing the same at the time of the occurrence. Therefore, his subsequent statement in cross-examination that his long-distance eyesight was weak cannot, by itself, be of any assistance to the case of the appellant-driver. When PW-3 was wearing his glasses at the relevant time, merely because he had weakness in his long-distance vision cannot lead to a conclusion that he was incapable of witnessing the occurrence correctly.

14. Similarly, the statement made by PW-3 in his examination-in-chief that the scooter had fallen on account of the lights of the tractor-trolley cannot be read in isolation, his testimony has to be considered as a whole. In his cross-examination, PW-3 had clearly stated that the tractor-trolley, after hitting the scooter of the deceased, did not stop. He further stated that the statement on the basis of which FIR No. 5 dated 09.01.2000 was lodged had been read over to him and that he had signed the same after understanding its contents. In the said statement, on the basis of which FIR Ex. P-2 was registered, it was clearly mentioned that the tractor-trolley had first hit the scooter of deceased and thereafter truck bearing registration No. PUV-3697 had crushed the scooter as well as the deceased. Thus, on a cumulative reading of the testimony of PW-3 and the contents of FIR Ex. P-2, it is clearly made out that he had attributed involvement of both the tractor-trolley as well as the truck and had stated that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles.

15. The defence evidence also does not create any doubt regarding the involvement of the tractor-trolley. On one hand, RW-1, the appellant-driver of the tractor-trolley, had simply denied his involvement in the accident and claimed false implication. On the other hand, RW-2, the driver of the truck, had claimed that the accident had already taken place by the time he reached the spot and, on inquiry, he came to know that the accident had been caused by a trolley which had fled from the spot. Thus, the version given by RW-2 itself attributes the occurrence to the tractor-trolley and, to that extent, corroborates the assertions made by the claimants and PW-3 regarding involvement of the tractor-trolley.

16. In view of the above discussion and findings, I do not find any error in the findings recorded by learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal had rightly held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. It is, however, clarified that as far as the claimants are concerned, the negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles is composite in nature and the claimants would be entitled to recover the entire compensation from either of the joint tortfeasors, subject to their respective rights against each other of contribution inter se. The apportionment of liability to the extent of 50% each, as determined by learned Tribunal, would operate only between the two vehicles for the purpose of inter se liability.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, no ground for interference with the impugned award is made out. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.

Appeal dismissed.

********