S. RAMESH Vs. K.P. JAYARAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are by the claimants being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 23.11.2009 passed in MVC Nos. 1420/2007 and 1421/2007 by the XIII Addl. Small Cause Judge & Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH -15) (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal' for short), for awarding reasonable compensation on the ground that the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the claim petition on the sole sole ground that vehicle number involved in the accident is not mentioned. The vehicle number mentioned in the FIR differs from the vehicle number mentioned in the Charge Sheet. They failed to establish that the vehicle bearing No. TN -01 -Q -8399 was involved in the accident. Therefore the appellants have presented these two appeals.

(2.) It is the case of the appellants that the appellants are aged about 26 years and 45 years and they have filed the claim petitions under Sec. 166 of MVC Act claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that occurred on 01.12.2006 at about 8.20 a.m. contending that when the appellants were traveling in Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. KA -53 -H -220 as rider and pillion rider, they reached near Kendriya Ugrana Samste, at that time, a car bearing No. TN -01 -Q -8399 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the impact, both the appellants fell down and sustained injuries on account of which they have filed claim petitions claiming compensation against the respondents contending that they have spent reasonable amount towards medical expenses and conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. The said claim petitions had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in turn after consideration of oral and documentary evidence and the materials available on record, has dismissed the said claim petitions holding that the appellants have not produced any documents in support of their case. Since there arose doubt in the mind of the Court as to whether the claimant sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle in question, it dismissed the claim petition.

(3.) Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have presented these appeals, respectively.