SUNAHARI DEVI Vs. MUNAZIR HUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants on Delay Condonation Application and on merit of the appeal as well as perused the record.The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 54 days. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application in the FAFO. The cause shown for delay is found sufficient. The delay condonation application is allowed and the delay is accordingly, condoned.

(2.) The appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 7.2.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge (Court No.8), Moradabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 406 of 2008 ( Smt. Sunahari Devi and others versus Munazir Hussain and others). They have prayed for relief of setting aside the aforesaid judgment and order dated 7.2.2011 and for grant of Rs.9,11,000/- as claimed by them in the claim petition.

(3.) The judgment is assailed on the ground that the factum of accident as well as involvement of the vehicle is prima facie proved by the claimants because registration number of the vehicle was noted by P.W.2 Gopal Singh who was present on the spot but the Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the claim of the appellants. It is stated that the accident took place on 4.4.2006 at about 8.15 P.M. by Truck No. U.P.21 N-2506 near Godhuli hotel when the deceased was going for duty at the Brass Factory Fazalpur. P.W.2 Gopal Singh eye-witness of the incident neither knew the claimants from before nor he was their relative. He was an independent witness who had seen the accident from Godhuli hotel where there was sufficient light, hence there is no reason to discard his testimony. Therefore, the Tribunal in an arbitrary manner and against evidence on record has wrongly dismissed the claim of the claimants-appellants as such the judgment rendered by it suffers from illegalities and is incorrect on face of record, hence the same is liable to be set aside.