SHANTI JOSHI Vs. SALIG RAM SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the claimant's appeal from order under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act of 1988, seeking the award of the claim of compensation, which has been denied by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, by the impugned award of 20/9/2011 as rendered in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.74 of 2007, Shanti Joshi and others vs. Salig Ram Saini and Others.

(2.) In case if the findings, which has been recorded by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, are taken into consideration and it is read in corelation to the documents which were produced on the records of the proceedings of Motor Accident Claim Case No.74 of 2007, the sole question which was raised by the owner of the vehicle, respondent no.1, in order to deny the involvement of the vehicle in question in the accident, which has occurred on 11/2/2006 is on the ground, that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. Because on the date of the accident and even much prior to it, he had already filed an application on 31/12/2005, before the competent registering authority for the purposes of permitting him to dismantle the vehicle and to sell its scrap and spares. But no finding as such has been recorded by the learned court below, as to on what basis the interpretation has been given to the said letter of 31/12/2005, more particularly when in the written statement, which was filed by the opposite party no.1, before the court below if that is taken into consideration, which was placed on record as Paper No.14 Kha, the said written statement which was submitted by the owner of the vehicle in the proceedings before the court below on 26/9/2007, but unfortunately in the entire written statement which was filed by the respondent no.1, in order to shy away from his responsibility to meet the demand of the compensation, as it has been raised by the claimant, there is not even a single whisper in the pleadings with regards to filing of the application dtd. 31/12/2005 which he has contended in his statement which was recorded as D.W.1, that he has submitted an application before the registering authority and this finding is exclusively based upon the said stand taken by the opposite party no.1 in his statement recorded in the proceedings before the court below, the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal while deciding issue no.1 has recorded his findings qua the impact drawn from the implications of the letter dtd. 31/12/2005.

(3.) This Court is of the view that while returning its finding based on the said letter and thereby positively concluding, that it is not proved, as to whether the vehicle in question, was at all involved in the accident as it has been recorded in the concluding part of the finding recorded on issue no.1, where it has been observed that it was not proved, that the vehicle belonging to the opposite party no.1, was involved in the accident, this Court is of the view that the finding recorded therein is absolutely perverse and contrary to the pleadings, as well as the evidence on record before the court below.