ABDUL GANI Vs. TIKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT /claimant, has directed this appeal against the award dated 27.1.1999 passed by II MACT, Khargone in Claim Case No. 32/1995 whereby the learned MACT, dismissed the claim petition filed on behalf of the appellant.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that on 26.5.1999, appellant sitting as pillion rider on a LML Vespa scooter was going along with one Hameed from Mohammadpur to Gogawan. When the scooter on which the appellant was travelling reached near Jagadamba Mandir, it dashed against a tractor coming from the opposite direction, causing some grievous injuries to the appellant -claimant and the tibia fibula bone of right leg was fractured. The FIR of the alleged accident was lodged at P.S. Gogawan, District Khargone same day by one Noor Mohammed and a criminal case was registered. The appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal for award of compensation for the injuries sustained in the alleged accident. The learned Tribunal, on evaluating the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the identity of the tractor in dispute is not established and recorded a finding that the alleged accident occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trolley No. MP10A/1185 is not proved. Aggrieved appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) THE only question arises for decision in this appeal is whether the alleged accident occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of tractor and trolley No. MP10A -1185 belonging to the respondent No. 1 ? The only alleged eye -witness examined on behalf of the appellant is P.W. 2 Noor Mohammed who also lodged the FIR Ex. P1 of the alleged accident at P.S. Gogawan same day. In FIR Ex. P1, the number of the offending tractor is not mentioned. In statement Ex. D1 recorded by police Gogawan under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, P.W. 2 Noor Mohammed has not given any number of the tractor responsible for the alleged accident. P.W. 2 Noor Mohammed, after three years of the alleged accident, on 17.3.1998, in his statement before the Tribunal, has stated that he reached at the spot soon after the alleged accident, when he reached at the spot, the driver of the tractor fled away from the place of the incidence along with the tractor. Noor Mohammed, in his statement also stated that he chased the tractor responsible for the alleged accident about half kilometre ahead from the place of the accident and noted the number of the said tractor. He also stated that after noting the number of the tractor, he went to the police station and thereafter lodged the FIR Ex. P1 at P.S. Gogawan. In cross -examination, P.W. 2 Noor Mohammed did not give any reasonable explanation for not giving the number of the offending tractor in the FIR Ex. P1 as also in the statement Ex. Dl recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. In cross -examination, he also admitted that he did not see the alleged accident and when he reached the spot, the driver of the tractor was not there and ran away from the place of the incident. The learned Tribunal, in view of the material contradictions and omissions found in his statement, disbelieved his statement on the point of noting the number of the tractor and its identity. No other evidence is available on the record on the basis of which the identity of the disputed tractor is established responsible for the alleged accident.