NARESH Vs. HANUMAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by unsuccessful claimant whose claim petition was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (in short "the Tribunal") as he had failed to establish that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by driver Hanuman which was owned by respondent No.2-Rajender.

(2.) The appellant who was working as cleaner/conductor on TATA 407 bearing No. HR-46-4448 and on 30.9.1998 was on his way in the said vehicle from Punjab side. The vehicle in question was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed. At about 4.00 P.M., when the said vehicle was approaching Rajpura City to Ambala City, a bus was standing still on the road due to brake down and the said TATA 407 struck against the bus from the back FAO No. 18 of 2004 -2- side. As a result of which, the appellant suffered fracture on his left leg and grievous injuries on various parts of his body. DDR No. 35 dated 1.10.1998 was recorded in this regard at Police Station, Rajpura. According to the appellant, he was brought to Anand Nursing Home, Bhiwani in a taxi for treatment where he remained admitted till 28.10.1998. He sustained permanent disability due to the fracture of thigh and knee bones. Accordingly, the appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. The said claim petition was contested by the respondents by filing their respective written statements. Various preliminary objections were raised. Besides controverting the averments made in the claim petition, the prayer for dismissal of the petition was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

(3.) The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence led by the parties decided issue No.1 against the appellant and in favour of the respondents holding that the appellant had failed to prove that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, while driving TATA 407 bearing No. HR-46-4448. Issue No.2 had FAO No. 18 of 2004 -3- become redundant whereas issue No.2 was not pressed during the course of arguments. Accordingly, the Tribunal vide order dated 29.9.2013 dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal.