PRAHLAD Vs. BHAGWAN SAHAI & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is found to have preferred instant appeal against the judgment dated 1st February, 2011 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa dismissed the claim petition of the appellant-claimant filed under Section 166 read with section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) The facts of the case are that on 15th October, 2007, at about 3-4 pm, one motor-cycle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-ST-9296, being driven by its driver Bhagwan Sahai rashly and negligently, hit one M-80, as a result of which, Shambhu Dayal, sitting behind the driver Bhagwan Sahai of the motor-cycle and one Amar Singh as also the appellant-claimant Prahlad, who were sitting on the M-80 sustained grievous injuries. It is alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, as a result of which, the injured claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal did not rely upon the story of accident as narrated by the claimant and observed that the contradictions seeming in the statements of witnesses with regard to accident were galore which evinced the story of accident improbable. The manner, in which the story of accident has been projected, it casts doubt about its credibility.

(3.) Having argued for some time, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he did not press the appeal but canvassed that the Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition directed the claimant to refund the amount of interim compensation i.e. Rs.25,000/- to the Insurance Company, which was paid under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal further directed that in case the amount of 'no fault liability' i.e Rs.25,000/- was not deposited by the claimant, the respondent No.2-Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. would be entitled to make recovery thereof from him. Learned counsel implores that the Insurance Co. may be directed not to recover the said amount of 'no fault liability' from the claimants. To justify his prayer, he has cited one judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of Indira Devi & Ors. Vs. Bagada Ram & Anr., 2010 ACJ 2451 in support thereof.