RAVINDRA KUMAR Vs. GOVIND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Ravindra Kumar has challenged the award dated 24.7.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindaun City, whereby the learned Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition filed by him.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 16.11.2004 around 10:00 AM, a tractor was going near the fields of the claimant. The tractor had a thrasher attached to it. Since the harvest had to be chopped up, the claimant and his brother called the tractor with the thrasher. Initially one Ramdhan was putting the harvest into the thrasher. Subsequently the driver, Govind, told the claimant that the harvest can be cut faster if he were to help. Therefore, the claimant also joined Ramdhan and started feeding the harvest into the thrasher. However, without any wanning, without any indication, suddenly Govind increased the speed of the tractor, thereby moving the thrasher at a faster speed. Consequently, the claimant's right hand was caught in the thrasher; half of the hand was amputated. When he shouted, Govind ran away. According to the claimant, he was hospitalised at Mahendra Hospital for five days in Bharatpur. Upon his return, he claimed to have filed a FIR at Police Station Suroth. Subsequently, he also filed a claim petition against the driver, the registered owner, and the Insurance Company of the tractor. In order to buttress his case, he examined himself as a witness, and submitted thirty -seven documents. The Insurance Company also examined a single witness, but did not submit any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, by award dated 24.7.2007, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence this appeal before this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, Ms. Sharda Pathak, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has pleaded that it was incumbent for the appellant to prove the fact that he had suffered his injury due to an accident caused by a vehicle. However, he has failed to do so. Secondly, that even if Exbs. -P.29 and P.30 were considered by the Tribunal, even then the factum that the injuries were caused because of the negligence of Govind and that the injury was caused due to an accident involving a motor vehicle, is not proved. Thirdly, according to the claimant himself, they are five brothers, out of whom Satish and Ramdhan were standing while the alleged incident took place. Yet neither of them had lodged the FIR at the Police Station which was only half a kilometer away. Fourthly, that despite the fact that Satish and Ramdhan were alleged eye witnesses, they have not been produced before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the appellant had failed to establish his case. Hence the learned counsel has supported the impugned award.