JAGDISH PRASHAD SINGH Vs. UMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant Jagdish Prasad Singh impugns the award dated 01.06.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (the Tribunal) whereby the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 preferred by him was dismissed on the ground that it was not established that the Appellant suffered injuries in the accident in the manner as alleged by the Appellant.

(2.) I have perused the Tribunal s record and have heard Ms. Deepti Gupta, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counsel for the Respondents No.3.

(3.) It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that there was ample evidence on record to establish the involvement of TATA 407 No.DL-1LA-6097 in the accident and rashness and negligence on Respondent No.1 s part. The Tribunal, argued the learned counsel for the Appellant, committed grave error in not believing the Appellant s testimony in the shape of affidavit Ex. PA, which was not challenged in cross-examination on the factum of accident and culpable negligence on Respondent No.1 s part.