D S MITTLE Vs. SHANTILAL R SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the opposite parties challenging the order made by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal making the award against the opponents/appellants. The sole question that is argued in this appeal is that sufficient material has not been produced by the claimants on record to establish that it is the vehicle owned by the opposite party no. 1, which was responsible for the accident. The learned counsel submits that victim Shantilal has stated in his deposition that it was a Fiat car which was involved in the accident. The learned counsel submits that, however, a car of the opposite party No. 1 which bears registration No. MMF 3353 is Ambassador car and, therefore, as the identity of the vehicle is not established award could not have been made.

(2.) I have gone through the entire evidence on record, which is relevant for consideration of the above referred point. I have also gone through the reasons given by the Tribunal for rejecting this defence. I am in agreement with the reasons given by the learned Tribunal for rejecting this defence. There are three witnesses who were present at the spot, who have given number of the car that was involved in the accident. Merely discrepancy in make of the car by the claimant, who saw a car after he was hit cannot, in my opinion, be given much importance. Though there is a ground in the memorandum of appeal that other persons who used the vehicle of the opposite party No. 1, namely, his father and driver were not permitted to be examined by the Tribunal, it does not appear to be correct in view of the order sheet maintained by the Tribunal. There is no such application made before the Tribunal. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that though a report was made to the police, police did not prosecute the opposite party No. 1 is concerned, in my opinion, no importance can be attached for the prosecution or non-prosecution of the opposite party No. 1 by the police. As citizens, on behalf of the claimant, their duty was done by lodging complaint to the police, what the police authority do after receiving report neither can be controlled nor supervised by the claimant. No inference also can be drawn from the alleged non-prosecution of the opposite party No. 1 for the offence by the police authority.

(3.) I, thus, agree with the Tribunal that the evidence on record is enough to hold that it was the vehicle of the opposite party no. 1, which was responsible for the accident. Thus, there is no substance in the appeal. It is dismissed with no order as to costs, appeal dismissed.