SATISH CHAND GUPTA Vs. AHID KHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant -claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') challenging the award dated 10.6.10 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in Claim Case No. 789/07, whereby the claim petition of the appellant has been dismissed by the Tribunal. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that as per the case of the appellant -claimant on 25.5.07 at about 11.00 AM he was going on the motorcycle and one Tempo bearing Registration NO. RJ -29 -PA -0165 came from behind and dashed with the motorcycle of the appellant, as a result thereof the appellant fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The appellant, therefore, had claimed the compensation of Rs. 44,30,000/ - for the injuries sustained by him. According to the appellant, the said Tempo was driven by the respondent No. 1, owned by the respondent No. 2 and was insured with the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company. The said claim petition was resisted by the respondent No. 1 and 2 by filing the joint reply denying the allegations and further contended that the said Tempo was never driven by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 3 Insurance Company also denied the manner in which the accident had taken place and the involvement of the vehicle in the alleged incident. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant had failed to prove the involvement of the offending Tempo vide the impugned award. Being aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Verma for the appellant, that the Tribunal has misappreciated the evidence by holding that the offending Tempo was not involved in the accident in question. According to him, the number of the offending Tempo was seen by the eyewitnesses and thereafter the private complaint in the court was lodged by the complainant Sanjay Gupta, who was the brother -in -law of the appellant -claimant, on 1.6.07 in the court. He submitted that the appellant had also taken the treatment in the hospital for the injuries sustained by him and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are erroneous.