Allahabad High Court
Ajay Kumar & Another vs Ram Nath & 2 Others on 18 December, 2015
Bench: Krishna Murari, Raghvendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 3
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2748 of 2015
Appellant :- Ajay Kumar & Another
Respondent :- Ram Nath & 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Singh
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar, J.
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 14.08.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Kannauj rejecting the claim petition.
Facts are that an application under Section 166 read with section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the claimants seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000.00 on the allegation that on 19.10.2012 at about 5:30 PM the son who had gone to his maternal uncle place at village Kanauli, Police Station Tirva, District Kannauj when was going to purchase medicines and was urinating near Kanauli Puliya, a Tractor bearing registration no. 74-J/1596 coming from Tirva side which was being driven rashly and negligently hit him and he died on spot. First Information report of the accident was lodged on the same day at about 7:30 PM. It was also pleaded that deceased Monu was a student of Class-XI and was very meritorious student and had a very bright future.
Claimant-appellant no. 1 himself appeared in the witness box and stated in his examination-in-chief that he did not know whether facts were correctly mentioned in the first information report or not which was lodged by his brother-in-law, Vijay Kumar. He further stated that at the time of accident deceased Monu along with two other boys Saurabh and Ankur coming on one motor-cycle and he did not know the name of the owner of motor-cycle nor he was aware who was driving motor-cycle. He further stated that there was collision between tractor and motor-cycle but offending vehicle was not caught. One Raj Bahadur also appeared in the witness-box on behalf of the claimants-appellants. He stated in his examination-in-chief that deceased was going from village to Tirva to purchase some medicines and while he was urinating at Kanauli Puliya, tractor no. 74-J/1596 which was being driven rashly and negligently hit him on account of which he died on spot.
Tribunal after analyzing the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the aforesaid two witnesses recorded a finding that P. W. '1' Ajay Kumar was not an eye witness of the accident and P. W. '2' Raj Bahadur also did not state that he saw accident and was an eye-witness. What he stated was that he saw the motor-cycle lying on the spot and the tractor had also eloped. Even in cross-examination, he did not state that he saw the accident. On the basis of the aforesaid, tribunal came to the conclusion that even Raj Bahadur was not an eye witness of the accident.
There is apparent conflict in the pleadings and evidence. In the claim petition, it was stated that deceased Monu while was urinating near Kanauli Puliya by the side of the road was hit by the offending tractor whereas in the oral evidence both witnesses stated that they were going on motor-cycle. Thus, the tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that there was no evidence on record to establish that accident was caused by offending tractor and it appears that accident was caused by unknown vehicle and thus, rejected the claim petition.
The finding recorded by the tribunal is based on proper appraisal of evidence on record and the pleadings. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any such evidence which might have been ignored by the tribunal or misread by it vitiating the impugned award. Once there was no material available on record to establish involvement of offending tractor in the accident, there was no other option but to dismiss the claim petition.
In view of the above facts and discussions, we do not find any illegality in the impugned award which may warrant any interference. The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed in limine.
Order Date :- 18.12.2015
Dcs
