1. By way of this appeal, the appellant- original claimant has challenged the judgment and award of the M.A.C.T.(Auxi.)& 6th(Ad- Hoc)Additional District Judge, Vadodara, dated 07.05.2011, whereby the tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the appellant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 15.02.2006, while the appellant was proceeding on a motor-cycle driven by respondent No.1 as a pillion rider, the same met with an accident, on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1. The appellant, therefore, preferred the aforesaid claim petition, wherein the tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal erred in holding that the appellant failed to establish the factum of accident. He has, therefore, prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.3 and perused the material on record. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
6. The case of the appellant before the tribunal was that on account of the alleged accident, he received severe injuries, and therefore, he is entitled to claim compensation. To prove the factum of accident, the appellant entered the witness box and his evidence was recorded vide Exhibit-22, wherein he stated that on account of the negligence of the driver of the motorcycle-respondent No.1, the alleged accident took place. He also examined one Dr. Kalpit Akhilbhai Baxi(Exhibit-26) in support of his case. However, the doctor, in his deposition stated that the appellant had told him that while he was proceeding on his bicycle, he was dashed by a tempo. He had also issued a certificate(Mark-31/1) to that effect. Thus, the evidence of this witness falsified the story put forward by the appellant. The tribunal, therefore, rightly inferred that the case put forward by the appellant cannot be believed.
7. It is an admitted position that the complaint of the alleged accident is filed after about 45 days by respondent No.1, who is son of the appellant. There is no material on record which would justify the delay occasioned in lodging the complaint. Further, what is most noteworthy is that respondent No.2, who is the owner of the motorcycle, is brother of the appellant. Neither respondent No.1 nor respondent No.2 entered the witness box. The tribunal, hence, rightly concluded that the appellant being failed to establish the factum of accident, is not entitled to claim compensation.
8. In the result, the appeal fails and is DISMISSED, accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI,J.) Umesh/