GANGARAM Vs. V.P. TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby appellants/Claimant's Claim petition was dismissed. Claimant No. 1 Gangaram is the husband of deceased Tirasia Bai and Claimant No. 2 Ku. Sona Bai is the daughter of the deceased. As per Claimants Smt. Tirasia Bai (deceased) was going back to her house at about 9.30 a.m. on 10.12.1984, and when she was passing near the house of respondent No. 1 V.P. Tiwari, respondent No. 1 who was driving the scooter dashed her on account of which she received severe injuries on her chest, head and other parts of the body. Smt. Tirasia later on the d on 21 December, 1984 in the hospital. It is further alleged that respondent No. 2Vinod Singh was the pillion rider at the time of the accident. After the accident respondent No. 1 himself took her to hospital and after giving treatment she was discharged. She was left at her house by the respondent No. 1. Later on a report was lodged in the police station. It is alleged that at the time of the death Smt. Tirasia Bai was aged 45 years and she was earning Rs. 20/- per day by selling vegetables. She would have survived upto the age of 65 year; her contribution to the family would be worth Rs. 15 per day and accordingly average income contributed by her towards the family would be Rs. 5000/- per year and; in this way the death has caused damages in form of compensation amounting Rs. 80,000/- to the Claimants which they are entitled to receive jointly and severally. It is further alleged that scooter No. DIO 3533 was insured with respondent No. 3.

(2.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 & 2 entered appearance and denied that he was either driving at the relevant time or that he is owner of the scooter. It is specifically denied that he had caused any injuries to Smt. Tirasia Bai as alleged in the Claim petition. According to respondent No. 3 Insurance Company, the vehicle was not insured with it as there was no document produced supporting Claims of the applicant that the vehicle is insured with respondent No. 3. However, it is alleged that the accident is proved before the Claims Tribunal the liability of the Insurance Company is restricted as per provisions of relevant policy, if there is any.

(3.) I have perused the record. The applicant No. 1 examined himself as P.W. land has stated that he was present at the time of accident on the spot and that the scooter driven by V.P. Tiwari respondent No. 1, which dashed with his wife. However, this fact that he was accompanied Tirasia Bai at the time when the accident took place does not find place in the Claim petition. Similarly, it is alleged in the Claim petition that immediately after the accident the respondent himself took Tirasia Bai for her treatment to the hospital. But in the statement before the court this witness has stated that she was taken to the hospital immediately after the accident by one Ashok Kumar. First Information Report lodged by Tirasia in the police station does not mention the presence of her husband along with her at the time of accident. These facts clearly indicate that the Claimant Cangaram was not present at the time of accident otherwise his presence with her wife at the time of accident would have found place in the FIR lodged by Tirasia Bai or at least in the Claim petition filed in the Court The other witness examined is P.W. 2 Munnibai, who has stated that she used to go with Tirasia Bai for selling vegetable. However, on the relevant date she had gone ahead of Tirasia Bai, and the accident took place near the Veterinary Hospital. In the cross--examination, she has admitted that about the accident she was told by Gangaram, and therefore, she is giving the statement in the court. Thus, it is apparent that this witness was also not present at the time of the accident and had not seen it. There is no more evidence on record. The Insurance Policy is neither produced nor got produced. On overall appreciation of evidence led by the Claimants, they completely failed to prove that Tirasia Bai met with an accident, caused by respondent No. 1 by scooter driven by him on 10.12.1984. The applicants/appellants have also failed to prove the identity of the vehicle which met with accident on the ownership of the same. There is no evidence to prove that the vehicle which is alleged to have met with accident was insured by respondent No. 3. In these circumstances, nothing has been proved by the Claimants, the dismissal of the Claim petition of the Claimants/appellants was in accordance with law and no interference is called for in this appeal.