MAHAVIR PARSHAD Vs. ASHOK KALRA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (For brevity "the Act") by unsuccessful claimant whose claim petition was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (in short "the Tribunal") as he had failed to establish that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter by Ashok Kalra.

(2.) The facts, necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein are that on 1.4.1994 at about 8.00 PM, appellant- Mahavir Parshad who was running a tea shop on Karnal Road opposite Irrigation Canal Colony, Kaithal went to the opposite side of the road to ease himself from urine etc. and when he was coming back to his shop, respondent No.1 driving his scooter No. HR-08-8918 rashly and negligently came from the side of Pehowa Chowk and collided with the claimant. As a result thereof, the appellant received injuries on the right leg and arm. Thereafter, the claimant approached the Police to register a case against respondent No.1. However, a rapat roznamcha report was recorded on 22.8.1994. Accordingly, the appellant filed a claim petition claiming INR 5,00,000.00 as compensation along with interest. The said claim petition was contested by the respondents by filing separate written statements. Besides raising various preliminary objections, it was pleaded by respondent No.1 that no such accident had taken place and this aspect was also admitted by the claimant before the police. Respondent No.2 also pleaded that as per DDR dated 22.8.1994 recorded by the police, the claimant had admitted that the accident was not due to the fault of respondent No.1. The other averments made in the claim petition were denied and prayer for dismissal of the same was made. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-

(3.) The Tribunal on appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence decided issue No.1 against the claimant holding that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by respondent No.1. Further, the claim petition was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Sec. 140 of the Act. Issue No.2 had become redundant whereas issue No.3 was decided in favour of respondent No.1. Accordingly, the Tribunal vide award dated 10.3.1998 dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal.