KHEMCHAND Vs. NANDRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award dated 15.10.2001, passed by Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, in M.V. Case No. 60/2000, whereby claim of appellant has been dismissed as he was not able to prove that accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Tractor by respondent No. 2 and owned by respondent No. 1.

(2.) ACCORDING to appellant-Khemchand, aged 40 years, working as Mason, at the time of accident, was returning home on 27.1.1998, at about 8.30 p.m. when on Daloda-Badwan Road, opposite the house of Gopal Mali, P.S. Bhaugarh, respondent No. 2 herein, driving Tractor bearing Registration No. MKU 4842, came and violently dashed against him. At the relevant point of time, said Tractor was owned by respondent No. 1. It is also not in dispute before us that it was not insured at the relevant point of time. Thus, the Insurance Company had not been joined as one of the respondents

(3.) IN the claim petition, it was mentioned that respondent No. 1 had orally promised the appellant, after the accident, that he shall take care of all the expenses that would be required to be spent by appellant for treatment and would also pay him adequate amount of compensation, provided he does not lodge F.I.R. Appellant, who was working as Mason in a village, believed the false promise given by respondents. Consequently, soon after the accident, he did not lodge any report with the police. Even though there appears to be some variance between pleading and proof, but the same is not so variant to non-suit the appellant.