(1.) THE claimant is aggrieved as his petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was dismissed. It is apposite to refer to the facts disclosed in the petition. Mohan Lal claimant was going from Panipat to Madlauda in a jeep driven by respondent No. 1. The rear tyre of the jeep burst and the jeep went out of control and turned turtle. The claimant pleaded that the accident had occurred on account of negligence of respondent No. 1 as the jeep had not been properly maintained. The Tribunal recorded a finding against the claimant on issue No. 1. It noted that no FIR had been lodged by the claimant. A DDR entry was got made by the claimant but he failed to place its copy on record. The Insurance Company produced the copy of the DDR lodged a day after the accident. Madan Lal had made a statement to the police that rear tyre of the jeep had suddenly burst and vehicle had turned turtle and nobody was responsible for the accident.
(2.) THE submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the claim petition should not have been dismissed solely because no FIR was not lodged and in Chaman Lal vs. Anil Kumar, 2007 145 PunLR 719, a cow had suddenly appeared on the road and the jeep driver could not stop the jeep rather and it went to the wrong side of the road and hit the scooter and it was held to be a case of rash and negligent driving and award was passed. Reliance was also placed upon Kaushnuma Begum vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 128 PunLR 334.
(3.) THE submission on the other hand was that had a claim been filed under Section 163 -A of the Act then it would have been a different case but the claimant had approached the Court pleading negligence then he was required to prove that the vehicle had not been maintained properly but he made a report to the police that the tyre had burst suddenly and there was no fault of the driver and he could not resile from his statement. It was urged that the Tribunal had referred to a judgment of this Court where a similar situation had arisen.