DHRUV NATH TEWARI Vs. GULDESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.11.2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IVth Additional District Judge, Faizabad, in Claim Petition No. 166 of 2005, Dhruv Nath Tewari v. Guldish Kumar and others, whereby the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition on the ground that the factum of accident has not been proved.

(2.) Brief facts emerges from the material on record and the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that deceased Sushila Tewari, was A.N.M. (mid-wife) in health department, Poora Bazar, District-Faizabad. On 28.5.2005, she was going to resume her duty by Vikram No. U.P.-42-T/3513 at about 8.00 a.m. The said vikram was being driven rashly and negligently. All of a sudden, the vikram turned over and the accident took place, in consequence thereof, Smt. Sushila Tewari sustained serious injuries and later on succumbed to the injuries. The claimants approached the Tribunal for payment of compensation. Before the Tribunal, it was stated that the deceased working on the post of A.N.M. was drawing salary of the tune of Rs. 8600/-. It is further stated that the factum of accident was reported to the Kotwali Ayodhya, District-Faizabad. Before the Tribunal, another document has been filed, which reveals that Jitendra Kumar Singh, Chowki in-charge of Darshan Nagar, Police Station-Kotwali Ayodhya, Faizabad, has submitted a report with regard to accident and stated that in Kotwali Ayodhya, information with regard to accident has been recorded under Rapat No. 19 at 9.35. Sub-Inspector informed that no police action is required since the death has occurred because of accident. The report made by Shri Dhruv Tewari is Ext. 39-Ga 1/1. According to the High School certificate, the date of birth of Sushila Tewari is 1 June, 1956.

(3.) With regard to issued No. 1, the Tribunal was impressed with the alleged fact that no first information report was lodged though occurrence was informed and Dhruv Nath Tiwari has seen the place of occurrence after three days and held that the appellants have failed to prove the factum of accident.