PETER D SOUZA Vs. WRIGHT WILLIAM GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. None for the Respondents though served.

(2.) The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Mapusa, in Claim Petition No. 84/2003, whereby the Claim Petition filed by the Appellant came to be dismissed by Judgment and Award dated 13.04.2006.

(3.) Shri Menezes, the learned Counsel has assailed the impugned Judgment on the ground that the Tribunal has rejected the reference essentially on the ground that the Appellants have failed to produce the scene of offence panchanama as well as the sketch as it was only marked 'X' for identification. Learned Counsel further points out that the Appellant has relied upon not only on such evidence but also on the evidence of one Narayan, Aw.4, who was an eye witness, whose evidence has not been shaken in the cross examination. Learned Counsel has further taken me through the impugned Judgment and pointed out that in fact the learned Presiding Officer has accepted the evidence of the said eye witness but merely on the ground that the said documents have not been produced, the Claim Petition came to be rejected. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the driver and the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident did not file any written statement nor contested the Claim Petition nor stepped into the witness box to disclose the manner in which the accident occurred. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Appellant had suffered injuries on account of the accident which have been established not only on the basis of the eye witness but also on the basis of the records produced by the Appellant from the hospital which clearly discloses that the injuries sustained by the Appellant were on account of a motor vehicle accident. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Appellant has sustained injuries and suffered a fracture and other ailments on account of the said accident which forced the Appellant to undergo operations after incurring substantial expenditure. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the accident occurred as the Maruti Gypsy vehicle which was being driven by the Respondent no.1 and owned by the Respondent no.5 suddenly swerved on the right side without showing any signal and on such count, the Appellant lost the control of his motorcycle which resulted in the accident wherein the Appellant has sustained the said injuries. Learned Counsel further pointed out that Aw.4, Narayan, has minutely given the particulars of the vehicles and the manner in which the accident has occurred. Learned Counsel further pointed out that merely because the panchanama has not been produced by itself does not mean that the Appellant has not established the accident on the basis of the other material on record. Learned Counsel further pointed out that it was incumbent upon the Respondent no.1 to enter into the witness box and state the manner in which the accident had occurred which he has failed to do and as such considering the material on record, the learned Presiding Officer has erroneously come to the conclusion that the Appellant has failed to establish the accident. Learned Counsel further submitted that the impugned Judgment cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.