SHIV KARAN Vs. UTTAM CHAND AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, (here-in-after referred to as the learned Tribunal) on 10.1.2005, vide which the petition filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act as against the respondents for the grant of compensation was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant as petitioner/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act originally against respondents No. 1 and 2 and Insurance Company not named. It was alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner got loaded his bricks and cement from Kaloor to Mawalanghat for the construction of stairs and house and was traveling in the tractor alongwith the said goods. It was alleged that the tractor was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2. It was further alleged that at a place near the house of one Amar Singh, the trolley came out, the tractor took speed and respondent No. 2 jumped out and the tractor turned turtle. The petitioner came under the tractor and suffered injuries in his stomach. He got himself treated at various places, applied for disability certificate which was found to be permanent to the extent of 20%. He alleged that he was doing the profession of a Photographer and due to disability, he is not able to do the said work and hence claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 15.00 lacs for injuries including for the treatment he got done at PGI and other places.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 i.e. the alleged owner and driver denied the allegations that any accident took place or the petitioner suffered injuries. It was pleaded that it was learnt that the petitioner fell from a tree and was admitted in the hospital for treatment and, therefore, they are not liable. Respondent No. 1 also denied the ownership of the tractor. During the trial of the case, respondents No. 4 to 7 were impleaded as owners of the tractor, who did not contest the case and they were proceeded against ex parte.