ALKA ADHESIVE (P) LTD Vs. MAHADEO RAMJI GHOLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocate for appellants at length.

(2.) THIS appeal arises out of application which was filed by the respondent under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - for loss that was caused to him because of the accident. - -

(3.) THE main question that is canvassed by the learned advocate for appellants is that the said vehicle was not at all involved in the said accident and the identity of the said car was not at all established by the respondent. It may be noted at the outset that after knocking down the respondent, the driver of the car fled away leaving the respondent unconscious. However, it is clear that number of the said car was noted. There were two persons near the site of the accident -one by name Anant and other Mahadeo Sawant. Mahadeo Sawant took the respondent to Cooper Hospital in a taxi and Anant filed F.I.R. (Exh. 20). The said Anant got the said number from Mahadeo Sawant and which came to be mentioned in F.I.R. The said F.I.R. is produced on record at Exh. 20. It mentions the said number MMY 7116. Further it also mentions that the car involved was a Fiat car. Further Anant has stated that it was white coloured while it came to be pointed out on behalf of the appellant No. 1 that it was having mustard colour. This would not make much difference. In any case colour of a car can be changed at any time. The make is important. This cannot, therefore, be a reason to disbelieve the evidence of Anant. Crime Report was also produced on record which showed that Director of appellant No. 1 by name Sunil Puri was arrested and released on bail. Puri denied that he was arrested and released on bail. But obviously he was not telling truth. Therefore, the finding recorded by the court below that identity of car was sufficiently established was correct. I, therefore, reject this contention.