JUDGMENT
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the award passed by Shri R.P. Bashin, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala on 23rd May, 1985 wherein he has awarded Rs. 76800/- to the claimants and respondents 1 and 2 are made liable to pay this amount jointly and severally to the claimant with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application.
2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case were that Rajian and Jodha Ram are the parents of the deceased Randhir Singh whereas Dilbagh and Om Parkash are minor brothers of the deceased. At the time of accident the age of Randhir Singh was about 20 years. He was serving as compounder in Veterinary Hospital, Naraingarh and was drawing Rs. 850/- per month. On 15.11.1983, at 8.15 A.M. Joginder Singh respondent No. 1 was driving truck No. HRA 6584 so rashly and negligently that he struck against the deceased, who was going on a cycle. Randhir Singh sustained grevious injuries. He was immediately taken to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh by respondent No. 1. The deceased was referred to PGI, Chandigarh where he was declared dead. Respondent No. 2 (appellant) is the owner of the truck. Truck was not insured but was hypothecated with the State Bank of India, Naraingarh Branch. The Claimants submitted the claim petition as dependents and legal heirs of the deceased and claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation.
3. Respondent 1 and 2 filed separate written statement. According to respondent No. 1, no such accident took place on 15.11.1983 with his truck. He was not driving this truck on 15.11.1983. This fact was admitted that respondent No. 2 is the owner of the truck. All other facts were denied. Respondent No; 2 also in his written statement admitted that he is owner of the truck. He too denied all other allegations made in the claim petition. Respondent No. 3 pleaded that this truck was hypothecated with the Bank but he is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.
4. Parties adduced evidence. The trial Court believing the claimants’ evidence held that at the time of accident, the said truck was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently whereby he dashed it against the deceased who was coming on a cycle. Deceased sustained injuries. Respondent No. 1 himself took him to the Civil Hospital, Naraingarh from where deceased was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh, where he was declared dead. On these findings, respondents 1 and 2 being the driver and owner of the truck were held liable to pay compensation for vehicular accidental death of Randhir Singh. Hence, the said award was passed against these two respondents and respondent No. 3 was held not liable to pay anything to the claimants. Their petition was dismissed against respondent No. 3.
5. Appellants main contention is that the trial Court while assessing the evidence of Raj Kumar AW2 and Ram Pal PW3 fell into an error in believing that they are eye witnesses of this accident. They are neither named :n the First Information Report which is duly proved by AW-6 MHC Palal Ram. Admittedly, a criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1 under Section 304-A I.P.C. about this accident. But in that criminal case these two witnesses, were not cited as eye witnesses. These witnesses never went to the Police Station to depose that they have seen the accident. Both of them are not residents of Naraingarh. AW-2 Raj Kumar has admitted that he has no ration card at Naraingarh nor his name appeared in the voter list of Naraingarh. Both these witnesses have tried to state that on the night of 14.11.1983 they were sleeping at the bus stand of Naraingarh. Naraingarh bus stand has no facility for the stay of any passenger as is proved by the statement of witnesses examined by the respondent. AW-2 Raj Kumar is Cobbler by profession. AW-3 Ram Pal wanted to go to Raipur Rani from Naraingarh. He came from Ambala. It is contended that from Ambala itself he would have got a bus for Raipur Rani, hence there was no reason for him to drop at Naraingarh for the night halt. Even further the last bus leaves Naraingarh for Raipur Rani at about 10.15 P.M. really if he wanted to go to Raipur Rani he could have taken that bus. Appellant’s learned counsel contended that both these witnesses are got up witnesses. The claimants have procured their evidence to prove the said accident. The trial Court has not taken these facts into consideration while evaluating their testimony.
6. Respondent-claimants’ learned counsel controverted all the allegations. The first objection is that in this appeal, appellant’s cannot challenge facts of the case. In the alternative, it is contended that the trial Court has given cogent reason for relying on the testimony of Raj Kumar and Ram Pal. There is no such law that only a person residing at a particular village or town can be an eye witness of an accident taking place in that village or town in his presence. If the names of Raj Kumar and Ram Pal are not mentioned in the First Information Report that will not make their testimony unworthy of credence. If they have not gone to the police station to say that they have seen the accident that will also not devaluate their sworn testimony. He further pointed out that Pritam Lal RW4 has stated that as per time-table a bus leave Naraingarh via Raipur Rani at 22.15 hours. But in the cross-examination he had to admit that he cannot say whether on 15.11.1983 such a bus left Naraingarh for Raipur Rani. He has stated that on the night of 14.11.1983, he did not awake any passenger who were sleeping at the bus stand. He could not give even the name of the Chowkidar who was employed on watch and ward duty. Thus, according to him, the trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the statements of both these witnesses in holding that this accident was caused by respondent No. 1 while driving his said truck rashly and negligently and in this vehicular accident, Randhir Singh breathed his last.
7. I have gone through the record of the trial Court. The trial Court has given cogent and convincing, reasons for relying on the testimony of AW-2 Raj Kumar and AW-3 Ram Pal. AW2 Raj Kumar is a Cobbler. He is not a permanent resident of Naraingarh. He stayed there for few months. If he has not got prepared ration card in his name at Naraingarh or if his name does not appear in the voter list, these facts will not make his oral testimony unreliable. He has stood the test of lengthy cross-examination and could not be shaken thereby. The trial Court has rightly believed him on the said point. Ram Pal AW-2 came from Ambala and was to go to Raipur Rani. He was present at the bus stand on the relevant day. According to him, on the asking of respondent No. 1 he sat in the said truck as a passenger to go to Raipur Rani. He was sitting near the driver. He saw the accident. He categorically stated that after the accident, respondent No. 1 removed the deceased from the spot and took him to the Civil Hospital, Naraingarh. The details of the accident are given by both these witnesses and they tally with the mode of accident given in the First Information Report which is proved by AW6 MHC Pala Ram. Ram Pal AW-3 is not to be disbelieved simply on the ground that he could have taken a bus from Ambala for Raipur Rani or could have left Naraingarh for Raipur Rani by the night bus. The respondent has failed to prove by adducing any positive evidence that on that night any bus left Naraingarh for Raipur Rani. If they say that they were sleeping at the bus stand they cannot be disbelieved simply on the ground that no such facility is available at that ) us stand. It is a fact of common knowledge that at such public places persons who have no other place to sleep, lie down to spend the night. If Raj Kumar and Ram Pal have not seen each other on that night at the bus stand that will also not make their testimony unbelievable as they are not known to each other and it is also a fact of common knowledge that when such persons sleep at the bus stand they do not try to acquaint themselves with other persons sleeping there. Thus, according to me, the trial Court has rightly believed the statement of both these witnesses while deciding issue No. 1.
8. The other contention is that respondent No. 1 was not driving the truck at that time. Relying on the statements of AW1 and AW2 the trial Court has held that at the relevant time respondent No. 1 was driving the truck and he is responsible for the accidental death of Randhir Singh. I have held above, that the trial Court has rightly believed the sworn and unshaken testimony of these witnesses. There is no rebuttal worth the name on record to make their statements unbelievable. Respondent No. 1 has deposed in the Court against his own pleadings. Appellant-respondent No. 2 is admittedly the owner of the said truck. I find that at the time of accident, respondent No. 1 was driving the truck rashly and negligently and he is responsible in the accidental death of Randhir Singh.
9. No other point is pressed before me.
10. Accordingly, I find that the appeal meritless is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.