SHIV NAYAK SINGH Vs. RAM AUTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the award dated 18.12.2004 passed by MACT/Addl. District Judge FTC-6, Banda in MACP no. 75/70/95 whereby the claim petition of the appellant u/s 166-Motor Vehicles Act had been dismissed.

(2.) It appears that on 5.4.1993 the claimant, an army pensioner along with his wife Smt. Ram Kali was going on foot to his village from Pailani and when they reached on the bridge near Pailani Dera at about 9 a. m. driver of Eicher tractor no. UHI-426 Brajesh @ Guddu driving the vehicle rashly and negligently knocked them down and the tractor turtled on the slope of the bridge. The wife of the claimant died instantaneously on the spot and claimant suffered fractures in both legs and his several ribs were also broken. He was taken to District Hospital, Banda for treatment and then to Central Command Hospital Lucknow, Base Hospital, Lucknow where he was hospitalized up to 8.9.1993. Thereafter he was shifted to ALC Hospital, Pune and undergone treatment up to 12.2.994. The claimant contended that during treatment his leg has been amputated and he has become permanently disabled and is unable to perform agricultural work as before. He prayed for an award of Rs. 4.78 lacs. The respondent no. 1 contested the claim petition and stated that the wife of the claimant was aged about 65 years and she was infirm. The factum of accident with the aforesaid tractor has also been disputed. It was further stated that the claimant is retired Subedar from Army and there was no occasion for him to go cover distance of 6 Kms. from Pailani to his village on foot as there are lot of transport facilities. He further stated that he does not own the tractor nor the name of his son is Brajesh @ Guddu and he does not know driving. In fact there was scuffle between him and claimant on 3.4.1993 at his hotel Jai Jawan Stall, Kutchery, Banda wherein the claimant and his son Anil Singh had damaged his crockery etc and he realized damages from the claimant, so he threatened him for dire consequences, therefore, false claim has been lodged against him. It was further stated by respondent no. 1 that earlier a claim petition no. 151/70/93 was filed by claimant's son Anil Singh regarding death of his mother Smt. Ram Kali which was dismissed by the Tribunal; that no police report was ever lodged about the alleged accident, nor the tractor was seized by the police, so the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. In order to prove his case, the claimant examined himself and produced Guddu Yadav PW 2 and filed several papers. The respondent no. 1 examined himself as DW 1 and also produced Sia Ram DW 2 and also filed several papers. Learned Tribunal after hearing parties' counsel found that the claimant has failed to prove the factum of alleged accident, its manner and involvement of tractor UHI-426 and that it was not owned by respondent no. 1. It was also not proved that on account of injuries sustained in the motor accident the leg of the claimant was amputated and, therefore, the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved the claimant has come up in appeal.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award.