Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3488 (ALL)

JASVIR SINGH v. HAMEER SINGH

2010-11-12

S.P.MEHROTRA, S.S.TIWARI

body2010
JUDGMENT By the Court.—This appeal has been preferred by the Claimant-Appellant Jasvir Singh against the judgment and Award dated 20.5.2010 passed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge (Motor Vehicles Act), Farrukhabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 94 of 2008. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 19.12.2007 at about 6.30 p.m. the Claimant-Respondent Jasvir Singh, aged about 35 years, resident of Village Rutaul, Police Station Kayamganj, district Farrukhabad was going on Motorcycle No. UP-76D-1587 alongwith one Ajay Kumar Shukla. While on way, the above noted motorcycle was dashed by the tractor bearing Registration No. UP-76-H-7223, due to rash and negligent driving by its driver resulting in serious injuries to the appellant on several parts of his body. The appellant had no incur a huge amount of money in his treatment in Raja Ram Memorial Nursing Home, Farrukhabad and due to this accident he has become disabled to do agricultural work for the livelihood of himself and his family members. 3. At the time of accident the above tractor was owned by opposite party No. 1, Hamir Singh and driven by opposite party No. 2 Jaipal alias Pappu and it was insured by opposite party No. 3, New India Insurance Co. Ltd. 4. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement jointly denying the allegations made in the claim petition alleging that the tractor in question has falsely been involved in this case. It was being driven by an experienced driver and the opposite party No. 2 had a valid driving license. The vehicle was duly insured by opposite party No. 3, which was effective from 19.2.2007 to 18.2.2008. Liability to pay any compensation has been denied. 5. The opposite party No. 3 also filed written statement denying the allegations made in the Claim Petition alleging that no information regarding the accident was given to it by opposite party No. 1 or 2. No copy of the F.I.R. has been filed on record. The liability to pay any compensation has been denied. 6. 5. The opposite party No. 3 also filed written statement denying the allegations made in the Claim Petition alleging that no information regarding the accident was given to it by opposite party No. 1 or 2. No copy of the F.I.R. has been filed on record. The liability to pay any compensation has been denied. 6. On the facts of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed issues to the following effect : (i) Whether on 19.12.2007 Jasvir Singh (injured) was coming on the Motorcycle of Ajay Kumar Shukla, bearing Registration No. UP-76D-1587 from Kayamganj to Farrukhabad and at about 6.30 p.m. the tractor bearing Registration No. 76-H-7223 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver coming from the side of Farrukhabad, dashed the above Motorcycle causing serious injuries to the Claimant ? (ii) Whether on the date of accident, the above tractor was duly insured by the New India Insurance Company Ltd. ? (iii) Whether the driver of the aforesaid tractor and the Motorcycle had valid and effective driving license with them at the time of accident ? (iv) Whether this accident took place due to contributory negligence of the drivers of Motorcycle and the Tractor ? (v) Whether the Claimant is entitled to any compensation, if so, from which opposite party ? 7. The Claimant filed certain papers relating to his treatment in Raja Ram Memorial Nursing Home, Farrukhabad including some receipts of purchasing medicines. X-ray Plate and Certified copies of the F.I.R. and Disability Certificate in support of his contention. No oral evidence was adduced by the claimant before the Tribunal in support of his case. 8. The opposite parties did not adduce any kind of evidence before the learned Tribunal. 9. The learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1 against the Claimant-Appellant holding that since no evidence was adduced by the Claimant-Appellant to prove the factum of accident, negligence and consequential injuries to him. The papers filed by the Claimant were also not got proved. Similarly, Issue No. 2 relating to presence of Insurance policy of the tractor in question with opposite party No. 3 was decided against the opposite party No. 3 and in favour of the opposite party No. 1. Issue No. 3 was regarding presence of valid and effective driving license with the driver of the Motorcycle and the tractor at the relevant time. Issue No. 3 was regarding presence of valid and effective driving license with the driver of the Motorcycle and the tractor at the relevant time. Photo stat copies of driving license of both the drivers were filed on record. The Insurance Company did not challenge the validity of these documents, hence this issue was also decided against the opposite party No. 3. Issue No. 4 was regarding contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. This issue was framed on the allegations of opposite party No. 3. Since, no evidence was adduced by the Insurance Company in support of the above issue nor the driver of the tractor or its owner admitted the factum of accident, this issue was also decided against the opposite party No. 3. Consequently, since the Claimant-Appellant could not prove the issues which he was legally required to proved, he was not held entitled to any relief claimed by him. 10. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the Claimant-Appellant mainly on the ground that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal is not justified. The evidence available on record adduced by the Claimant-appellant has not properly been appreciated by the Tribunal. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Apparently, Issue No. 1 is the main issue framed by the Tribunal regarding the factum of alleged accident on the aforesaid date, time and place in which the Claimant-appellant is said to have sustained serious injuries on his person for which he was medically examined in Raja Ram Memorial Nursing Home. A perusal of the record reveals that after framing of the issues several dates have been fixed for evidence of the Claimant-appellant including 2.7.2009, 21.7.2009, 4.8.2009, 20.8.2009, 3.9.2009, 19.9.2009, 15.10.2009, 18.10.2009, 19.1.2010, 18.2.2010, 10.3.2010, 9.4.2010, 4.5.2010 and 20.5.2010.The Claimant-appellant did not care to produce any evidence in support of his contention on the aforesaid dates. He did not examine even himself to prove the factum of accident and the consequential injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid accident. No doctor attending him in the aforesaid Nursing Home has been examined to prove that he was ever admitted in that Nursing Home or any kind of treatment was given to him in the said Nursing Home. He did not examine even himself to prove the factum of accident and the consequential injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid accident. No doctor attending him in the aforesaid Nursing Home has been examined to prove that he was ever admitted in that Nursing Home or any kind of treatment was given to him in the said Nursing Home. Even the doctor who is said to have prepared the X-ray report on the basis of X-ray plate has also not been examined to prove it. Not a single cash memo regarding purchase of medicines has been legally proved on record. The Tribunal allowed sufficient opportunity to the Claimant-appellant and adjourned the proceedings on about 14 dates to enable the Claimant-appellant to adduce evidence, but he failed to do so. The Claim Petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Claimant-appellant was under a legal obligation to prove the allegations made by him in the claim petition, particularly, the factum of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, consequential injuries to him and the expenses incurred by him in his treatment. 13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment and order. The appeal has no force and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. —————