Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 361 (MP)

M. P. E. B. , Bhopal v. Bhagwandas Rajput

2005-03-09

BHANTANU KEMKAR

body2005
JUDGMENT This is claimant's appeal against the award dated 28.2.1997 passed by the IXth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'The Tribunal') Bhopal in claim case No. 21/96. The appellant-claimant filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 99,500/- for the damage caused to their electric transformer. As per the claim petition on 14.2.1991 a truck bearing registration No. MPD-6485 owned by the respondent No.2 driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No.1 and insured with the respondent No.3 dashed to an electric transformer of the claimant installed at main road No.3 near Rahul Nagar, Bhopal. As a result of the said dash the transformer was damaged and became unserviceable. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents No.2 and 3 by' filing their separate written statements. The respondent No.2 denied the occurrence of any such accident by his truck No. MPD-6485. The Tribunal framed three issues and after recording evidence led by the parties dismissed the claim petition. The Tribunal held that the appellant could not prove the occurrence of the accident by the said truck. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award, this appeal has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The appellant's case before the Tribunal was that Shri Jameeluddin, Assistant Lineman informed about the said accident to Police and lodged the FIR Ex. P-1 in the Police Station, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal. The witness examined about the occurrence of the accident was P.C. Malviya (PW 1), Assistant Engineer who prepared a punchnama Ex. P-2. He is not an eye witness of the accident. In panchnama Ex. P-2 he has recorded that on being informed by Jameeluddin that a truck No. MPD-6485 dashed the transformer D.P. and the transformer has fallen down he went to the spot. In pachnama Ex. P-2 he did not make any mention about the truck being found on the spot, but in his deposition, he stated that on being informed about the accident, he went to the spot and found that truck No. MPD-6485 was entangled with transformer D.P. However, Jameeluddin was not examined before the Tribunal. FIR Ex. P-1 said to have been lodged by him is illegible. The other witnesses examined by the claimant are about the extent of damage caused to the transformer. FIR Ex. P-1 said to have been lodged by him is illegible. The other witnesses examined by the claimant are about the extent of damage caused to the transformer. The Tribunal considered the entire evidence and taking note of the material contradiction in Ex. P-2 panchnama and the oral evidence of Shri P.C. Malviya (PW 1), disbelieved his version. I find no illegality in the findings of the Tribunal. There is absolutely no evidence to establish that the accident occurred by the truck No.MPD-6485. The FIR Ex. P-1 produced by the claimant is of no use as the same is not readable. On being asked to read FIR Ex. P-1 the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant also failed to read its contents. The appellant did not file certified copies of the criminal case. The record of criminal case was also not summoned. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition holding that the appellant could not prove by adducing any cogent and legal evidence the fact of accident being caused by the said truck. Moreover, about the place of accident also there are discrepancies in the pleadings and in the evidence of P.C. Malviya (PW 1), S.A. Farooque (PW 2) and Kailash Chandra Jain (PW . 3). In the claim petition, it was stated that the transformer situated at main road No.3 near Rahul Nagar was damaged in the said accident, whereas P.C. Malviya (PW 1) has deposed that the damaged transformer was installed at main road No.2, Kailash Chandra Jain (PW 3) deposed that the transformer was situated at MACT on Kolar Road. On the basis of such evidence, the Tribunal has held that the appellant has failed to prove the accident. I find no ground to take a different view. There is no explanation as to why the said eye-witness Jameeluddin was not examined. In the absence of any proof about the alleged accident being caused by the said truck the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition. Accordingly, the appeal has no merit and therefore the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.