LAL CHAND Vs. AKSHYA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of the dismissal of the claim proceedings vide award dated 16.01.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for brevity 'the Tribunal') passed in MACT case No. 70 of 2012, the present appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant.

(2.) The facts as alleged by the claimant are that on 06.04.2012, he was going to Bilaspur on motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02-R-8973. When he reached near turn of Kapal Mochan-Machhrauli on Ranjitpur road, a tractor trolley bearing registration No. HR-02-D-4566 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') hit the motorcycle. Due to the impact, he sustained serious injuries on various parts of body including head and became unconscious. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Jagadhri and then to Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar from where he was referred to PGI Chandigarh. FIR No. 46, dated 06.04.2012 was registered at Police Station Bilaspur at the instance of Ramesh Kumar.

(3.) The claimant, to prove the involvement and rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle the claimant placed reliance upon FIR and the charge sheet filed against the alleged driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.1. The Tribunal opined that onus cast upon the claimant under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to prove the involvement and rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle was not discharged, consequently, the claim petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that Ramesh Kumar was an eye witness to the accident and he promptly lodged FIR, on the basis of which a charge sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. He further argues that, claimant was able to prove the involvement and rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. He further argues that the claimant himself deposed before the Tribunal to prove the involvement and rash and negligently driving of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the respondents argues that the FIR was was registered against the unknown vehicle. He relies upon the order passed in the criminal proceedings where Ramesh Kumar appeared as PW-4 and deposed that accused Akshya Kumar was not the person who caused the accident.