Nainital v. Rakesh Kumar Sinha

concerned on the ground that in the first information report, lodged by the driver Deokinandan, the name of Nityanand Bhatt P.W.4, does not find place anywhere. 10- As far as the apportionment of the rash and negligence on the part of the trucks concerned, the court below has relied upon the dictum of (cid:145)res ipsa loquitur(cid:146) The circumstances of the case are very clear that both trucks were going opposite to each other at the time of the accident and the drivers of both the trucks had sufficient opportunity to avoid the accident. Had the drivers of the trucks been vigilant, they would have avoided the accident. The Tribunal is perfectly justified in holding that the drivers of both the offending trucks are equally responsible for their rash and negligence in this accident. 11- As far as the amount of damages is concerned, it is evident from the evidence of P.W.1, claimant/appellant, P.W.2, Diwan Singh and P.W.3, Pravin Kumar, that all these witnesses could not establish as to what was the market-value of the truck involved in the accident. P.W.3, Pravin Kumar has given the estimate of Rs. 42,173/- and that estimate the value of the chesis has been mentioned as Rs. 15,000/-. The court below has taken this aspect into consideration that the chasis was quite old and after calculation the amount of damages came to Rs. 34,573=90P. rounded to Rs. 34,574/-. 12- As both trucks question were held responsible equally for causing the accident, therefore, the claimant/appellant has been rightly awarded half of the damages calculated by the Tribunal, which comes to Rs. 17,287/-. 13- I do not find any infirmity impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal concerned. 14- On the basis of the assessment of evidence on record, I am of the positive view that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C.Kandpal, J.) Dated: 27-09-2006 ISB