PALLAB KUMAR RAY Vs. RATIKANTA SENAPATI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award dated 23.8.2001 passed by Third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balasore in M.A.C.T. Case No. 51/237(c) of 2000-1997 dismissing the claim application of the claimant-appellant. The fact of the case in a nutshell is that the appellant, being the claimant, filed an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000 contending, inter alia, that while he was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. ORB 5471 on 29.8.1997, the said vehicle met with an accident as a result of which he sustained bodily injuries on his person along with several other passengers. Accordingly, Bhadrak Rural P.S. Case No. 162 of 1997 was registered under sections 279/337/304-A, Indian Penal Code and charge-sheet was submitted.

(2.) Pursuant to notice issued by the Third M.A.C.T., Balasore, the owner of offending bus, respondent No. 1, did not appear and he was set ex parte. Insurance company, respondent No. 2, entered appearance, filed its written statement denying the contentions raised in the claim application, and called upon the claimant-appellant to prove his case by adducing cogent evidence, but did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of the plea taken by it in its written statement.

(3.) The claimant-appellant examined himself as PW 1 and relied upon the documents marked as Exhs. 1 to 5 in support of his contention whereas neither anybody has been examined nor any document has been exhibited on behalf of the insurance company, respondent No. 2.