ROHTASH Vs. SURESH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against dismissal of the claim petition on the ground that the appellant was not able to establish the factum of the accident.

(2.) Brief facts are that on 31.01.1999 appellant Rohtash along with his sister-in-law Krishna were returning from Sonepat to their home after shopping. His sister-in-law was pillon-rider on his scooter No. HR- 12B/3943 when he was just started scooter at Sonepat it was 6.15 P.M. When they reached near Bus stand Sonepat, a Tata Sumo bearing No. HR-10T/1161 came driven rashly and negligently at a high speed without blowing any horn, hit the scooter from front side, due to which, the appellant and his sister-in-law Krishna fell down and received injuries on their person. Suresh was driving the said Tata Sumo rashly and negligently. Balwan Singh the brother of the appellant, who was also present at the time because he was shopping at Sonepat, also reached at the spot. The driver ran away from the place of accident. Both the injured were admitted to Civil Hospital, Rohtak for treatment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in this accident two persons were injured and one of the claimants-injured had filed the claim petition at Sonepat and the Tribunal held the accident to be proved and that judgment has attained finality. Copy of that Award is annexed as Annexure P-2. He has argued that once the judgment has attained finality it would not lie in the mouth of the Insurance Company to argue in this case that no accident took place.