NANDAN SINGH Vs. CHANDRA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the award dated 16.2.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 731/1987 whereby the claim filed by the appellants for compensation on account of the alleged injury suffered by him in an accident which took place at about 8.30 a.m. on 23.7.1987 was dismissed by the Tribunal.

(2.) The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claiirf petition filed by the appellant even though there was evidence of the accident and the injuries suffered by the appellant.

(3.) I have perused the award passed by the Tribunal and from the perusal of the same, I find that while deciding the Issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal has given sufficient and cogent reasons, for dismissing the claim application filed by the appellant inasmuch as the Tribunal has found "that the accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent No. 1. On the contrary as a result of the accident, the respondent No. 1, who was driving the scooter fell down and remained unconscious and was hospitalised. The Tribunal has further held that the appellant did not file any report with the police by lodging a First Information Report against the respondent No. 1 in respect of the said accident, either on the date of accident or any subsequent date thereafter. The learned Tribunal has further found and held that in spite of the opportunity being available with the appellant during the pendency of the claim petition which was filed in the year 1987 on or about 7.10.1987 the appellant did not produce any injury report in respect of the alleged injury suffered by him. On account of the aforesaid alleged accident. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was doubtful that the appellant, in fact, suffered any injury as a result of the said accident, the Tribunal, therefore, held and drew adverse inference against the appellant for the non-production of these material documents. As opposed to the aforesaid, the learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence produced before it by the respondent No. 1, more particularly, (Exh. A-2) the site plan, it came to the conclusion that the accident, in fact, took place at the cent of the road which goes to establish that, in fact, the appellant himself was responsible for having contributed to the accident. The learned Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of the appellant's witness Ashok Kumar Khandal, whose evidence the learned Tribunal found to be contradictory in nature and being a neighbour of the appellant is also a chance witness as such his testimony is not creditable and was contradictory.