ORDER : 1. Heard the parties. 2. The claimant is in appeal against the judgment passed in Claim Case No. 26 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, the claim application filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for suffering permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident has been dismissed. 3. As per the case of the claimant, he was a mechanic and salesman of Satya Food Company and he sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident involving a Truck bearing Registration No. BR-13-8182, resulting in permanent disability. 4. Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application, inter alia, on the following grounds: (i) Story, as narrated by the claimant, was not as per the fardbeyan and F.I.R. (Ext.-1). The claim application has been filed against Truck bearing Registration No. BR-13-8182, whereas the charge sheet has been submitted against the Truck bearing Registration No. BR-13-1257. (ii) The Informant Ramballabh Mishra and the driver of Tempo Nageshwar Ram, in which the claimant is said to be travelling at the time of accident, were not examined. (iii) No eye witness was examined with regard to manner of accident and, therefore, it cannot be said that the claimant was the victim of the said accident. 5. It is argued by Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, that admittedly there was no direct eye witness to the accident, but C.W.3 Parasnath Singh, who came immediately after the accident, has deposed that he saw the injured lying on the road after the accident in an injured condition. So far as the F.I.R. is concerned, it is argued that it is not a substantive piece of evidence and no contrary version has been led on behalf of the owner or insurer of the vehicle to dispute the evidence of C.W.3 given on oath. Since the injured was not a full-time employee, but only a part time employee engaged as a salesman, therefore, the documentary evidence cannot be produced with regard to it. Further, it is not relevant in a claim under the Motor Vehicle Act. 6. It is argued by Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle that the F.I.R. (Ext.1) specifically refers to only two injured in the accident and does not whisper anything about this claimant to be traveling in the said vehicle at the time of accident. 6. It is argued by Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle that the F.I.R. (Ext.1) specifically refers to only two injured in the accident and does not whisper anything about this claimant to be traveling in the said vehicle at the time of accident. Other two injured, who are said to be co-employees, have not even been examined on behalf of the claimant. Further, the policy of insurance which was produced by the claimant, was marked as Ext.X for identification, was found to be fake in the finding of learned Tribunal. 7. Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, submits that since the offending vehicle was not under its insurance cover, therefore, no liability can be fixed on it. 8. Motor Vehicle Act, so far the provisions of accidental claims are concerned, is a beneficial piece of legislation, where the rules of pleading and evidence do not apply in its absolute rigidity. However, this does not mean that fundamental principles of pleading and proof have been given a complete gone by in these cases. To begin with, in the present case, there is no detail of the manner of accident in the entire claim application. Theres is absolutely no description as to how the accident took place, in which vehicle he was travelling at the time of accident, how the offending truck bearing no. BR-13-8182 caused the accident. F.I.R. and charge-sheet which have been adduced into evidence and marked as Ext-1 and Ext-2 on behalf of the claimant and therefore cannot be completely ignored. F.I.R. specifically refers to only two injured in the accident. Further chargesheet has been filed against Raghunandan Yadav driver of truck bearing Registration No. BR-13-1257, but the driver has not even been impleaded as a party. Under the circumstance, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned Judgment. This Misc. Appeal being without merit is, accordingly, dismissed with cost. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra