LAL Vs. G.JOHNSLY MOSES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeals are filed against the dismissal of the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The dismissal was on account of the vehicle alleged to have been involved in the accident not being proved to be so involved. There were also discrepancies with respect to the narration of the accident which was not in consonance with the FI statement and the evidence led before the Tribunal.

(2.) The incident as narrated in the claim petitions was that the applicant in O.P(MV) 11/2001 was riding a bicycle with one Wilson carried behind. There was a hit and run in which the applicant in O.P(MV) 11/2001 suffered grievous injuries and the man accompanying him on the carrier of the bicycle died. The legal heirs of the deceased filed O.P(MV) No.16/2001.

(3.) It has to be immediately noticed that the original averments in O.P(MV) 11/2001 was that the deceased was pedaling the bicycle while the averments in O.P (MV) 16/2001 and FI Statement recorded was to the effect that the claimant in O.P(MV) 11/2001 was pedaling the bicycle. O.P(MV) 11/2001, which was by the appellant who was involved in the accident, was later amended to bring it in-consonance with the FI Statement.