SANTOSH Vs. RAVI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 30.01.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a Claim Petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) preferred by the Appellant was dismissed on the ground that the involvement of vehicle No.DL-6SAA-2115 and negligence on the part of its driver Ravi Kumar, the First Respondent was not established.

(2.) BY an order dated 22.11.2011 an application for additional evidence filed by the Appellant was allowed and the Claims Tribunal was directed to examine Pawan Kumar who was cited as a prosecution witness in the criminal case registered in respect of the accident.

(3.) DURING inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, the Appellant examined Dharambir Singh PW-2 who claimed himself to be an eye witness to the accident. The Claims Tribunal rejected his testimony mainly on the ground that his name was not mentioned as a prosecution witness in the charge sheet. The Claims Tribunal observed that Pawan Kumar, who was cited as an eye witness was not examined by the Claims Tribunal. It was further held that as per DD entry recorded immediately after the accident, the information made available to the police was that the accident had been caused by a tempo and not a two wheeler. Thus, the Claims Tribunal concluded that the Appellant failed to establish the involvement of the two wheeler No.DL-6SAA-2115 and negligence on the part of its driver Ravi Kumar, the First Respondent.