SANJU RAJE SINGH Vs. RAMESH DEVILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") against the award dated 31.1.2013 passed in Claim Case No.3/2011 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh(Biaora) by which the claim of the appellant has been rejected.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that 1520 days prior to 13/6/2009 appellant Sanju was standing on the road near Society where there was a government tube well when he was watching the tube well a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. MP 39d0211 came from the direction of Pipaliyakulmi being rashly and negligently driven by nonapplicant No.1 Ramesh and dashed Sanju and as a result of which he received several injuries on the body and was admitted to the hospital. He was operated upon and a rod was implanted. A claim was filed before the Tribunal stating that there was a malunion of bone and the claimant was admitted to the Hamidiya hospital and due to the injury it was difficult for him to perform his day to day routine activity and he had suffered permanent disability. It is also stated that at the time of accident he was studying int Class III and also helping with selling milk and his income was Rs.1,500/ per month and hence claimed Rs.12,00,000/ as compensation. Nonapplicant No.1 and 2 remained ex parte and respondent No.3 Insurance Company resisted the claim by denying all the allegations and also that the FIR was filed after a quite substantial delay. There was no MLC on record on the said date and it is also denied that the claimant received any grievous injuries. Usual and stock pleas that the vehicle was driven by Giriraj and he was not a party to the case and nonapplicant No.1 Ramesh Luhar was alleged to have been driving the vehicle and he did not have a valid licence were also taken. The trial Court on considering the claim and the evidence on record dismissed the claim and hence the present appeal to set aside the impugned judgment.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant has submitted the fact that there was ample evidence on record; despite which the claim was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal. Counsel vehemently submitted the fact that there was ample evidence on record such as the testimony of P.W.2 Shantibai, P.W.1 Rajesingh, father of the injured Sanju, the medical evidence on record and the FIR Ex.P/1 all clearly established the fact that the claimant was the victim of the motor accident dashed by nonapplicant No.1. Counsel prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside.