1. Before proceeding with the matter, it is required to be observed that the matter has been listed time and again before this court. At times the matter could not be taken up by the court itself whereas on certain occasions, learned advocate for the appellant sought time on one or the other ground.
1.1 Today when the matter is called out, Ms. Shah, learned advocate for the appellant is not present. Ms. Namrata Chauhan, learned advocate has requested for an adjournment which has been objected by learned advocate for the respondent Mr. Nanavati. Mr. Nanavati submitted that the matter is of the year 2002 and has been pending for no reason. He objected to the number of adjournments sought by the learned advocate for the appellant which is justified.
1.2 This court therefore, declines the request of adjourning the matter and has asked Ms. Chauhan to either conduct the matter herself or call for Ms. Shah.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 11.03.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Navsari in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 690 of 1991 so far as the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
3. It is the case of the appellant that on 24.11.1990 while he was travelling as a cleaner in truck bearing registration no. GTO 3911 being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner asa result of which the truck dashed with another truck which was going ahead. The appellant sustained injuries on various parts of the body. The appellant therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 25000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
5. Ms. Namrata Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for Ms. Shah, for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal gravely erred in dismissing the claim petition of the appellant considering the fact that the respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle in question rashly and negligently. She submitted that considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim petition.
6. Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent has supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the Ex. 47 was produced on record but the claimant was not available for cross examination which is required in claims more than Rs. 10000/-. He submitted that the claimant failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim.
7. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this court is of the view that considering the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove that the accident in question happened because of the original opponent no. 1.
7.1 The claimant has not reported the incident before the police. No police case is registered. The medical certificate produced are not trust worthy. Ex. 47 is not produced in the paper book. The certificate of Dr. Joshi came to be issued in the year 2001 which is after a lapse of almost ten years. It is important to note that the doctor had not produced any treatment papers having the history of vehicular accident or the injuries sustained due to the accident which happened in the year 1990.
7.2 The claimant did not step into the witness box to narrate the alleged incident and therefore adverse inference was drawn by the Tribunal against the claimant. Moreover, no where the description regarding the truck which caused the accident was given by the claimant.
7.3 Nothing is pointed out before this Court to take a contrary view. This court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal and therefore do not see any reason for causing interference.
8. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//