LALLOO RAM Vs. RAM BABU KAMARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by claimants against the dismissal of their claim petition. Appellant contended that he was travelling in a bus bearing No. MPH 845 owned by respondent No. 2. He was travelling from village Kitora to Morar. The bus overturned between village Utila and Bancha and he suffered serious injuries. He has suffered fracture on the left shoulder and in the left palm. He was admitted in J.A. Group of Hospitals and discharged from the hospital. In para 6 of the petition, he has mentioned that he has suffered fracture on three points. He had claimed compensation of Rs. 1,58,000. The owner and driver of the vehicle after service have not appeared before the Claims Tribunal and they were proceeded ex parte. Insurance company has filed their reply.

(2.) AW 1 categorically deposed that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted into overturning of the bus and caused injuries to him. He was admitted in the J.A. Group of Hospitals for three days and was under treatment of Dr. Maheshwari and Dr. Purohit for about six months. He has deposed that he could not work on account of injuries for a period of six months. He has spent Rs. 10,000 on medicines and further spent Rs. 10,000 on the special diet. In para 5 of the deposition, he has stated that his income was Rs. 2,000 per month. He was not cross-examined about his income. AW 2, Dr. Badri Prasad Purohit, has deposed that he had examined the injured on 25.1.1989 and there was a fracture in the 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs. He was bandaged for a period of five weeks. He contacted the doctor on 6.4.1989 and complained about pain in shoulder and chest.

(3.) The Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim on the ground that none of the witnesses has stated that the vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1. In the absence of mentioning the name of driver, it is not established that vehicle was driven by the respondent No. 1 Ram Babu Kamariya. Claims Tribunal further recorded a finding that since F.I.R. lodged before police and the challan papers of police have not been filed, therefore, claimants' claim application cannot be allowed. Claims Tribunal has also recorded a finding that respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle under employment of the respondent No. 2 and further held that vehicle was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Findings recorded by Claims Tribunal are perverse and contrary to evidence on record. In the absence of any written statement by driver and owner of the vehicle it demonstrates that driver and owner of the vehicle had decided not to oppose the application and admitted the averments of the application. AW 1 Lalloo Ram categorically stated that he was driver in bus No. MPH 845 and Tribunal has recorded specific finding in para 7 of the award that bus was owned by respondent No. 2 Balkar Singh and the vehicle was insured by respondent No. 3.