NITYANANDA ROUTRAY Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR ROUT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 22nd August, 1995 passed by the Second M.A.C.T., Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 271 of 1987 in rejecting the claim petition for the reason that as there is no police case, the injury sustained by the claimant is in doubt and no compensation can be awarded urging various grounds.

(2.) THE facts of the case need not be adverted to in this appeal for the reason that the learned Tribunal has elaborately narrated the necessary facts in its judgment.

(3.) AS respondent No. 1 -the owner of the offending vehicle did not prefer to appear, the appeal as against him has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.7.2006. The vehicle was insured, the owner has admitted the accident, but he has attributed the case of accident to the appellant. The said plea is not proved either by the owner or the insurer after availing the defence of the owner by obtaining permission from the learned Member of the Tribunal as provided under Clause (ii) of Sub -section (2 -A) of Section 110 -C of the repealed M.V. Act, 1939 or Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.