1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 19.10.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Navsari, in M.A.C.P. No.60/1992, whereby, the tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.
2. The facts in brief are that on 2.9.1991, while the present appellant was going to Vansda along with his friend on his Motor Cycle bearing registration No.GCY-6399. At that time, one Jeep bearing registration No.GAT-8645 came from the opposite direction and dashed the said Motor Cycle. As a result of the said accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and therefore, he filed claim petition being AM.A.C.P. No. 60 of 1992 before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for the parties and after perusing the record has dismissed the claim petition against which the present appeal is filed by the appellant- original claimant.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. He submitted that the tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective and therefore, he has prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal and have prayed to dismiss the same, as being without merit.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record. The Tribunal while deciding the claim petition in paragraph 9 and 12 has observed as under:-
9.In this case, the drivers of offending jeep car as well as the owner and Insurance Co. of the motor Cycle No.GCY-6399 are not joined as the parties to the proceedings. Therefore, the learned advocate for the Insurance Company has taken a serious contention from the beginning after seeking permission u/s. 170 that the jeep car in question is not involved in the accident and he has also adduced oral as well as the documentary evidence in order to prove non involvement of the said vehicles in the said accident. After the evidence was over, as the petitioner was represented by a Junior Advocate, the Tribunal has given nearly 6 to 7 opportunities to produce documentary evidence in the nature of judgment or the chargesheet produced in the competent court showing the involvement of the jeep but the learned advocate for the claimant has shown his inability to produce such documents. Instead he has produced today a writing came to be issued by P.S.I., Vansda showing the jeep to have been involved in the accident relying upon the FIR (Exh. Mark 61/1).
12.The Insurance Company has examined one Govindram Karamchand Mihir who is the owner of the Brother's Motor Garage, Waghai. He has deposed on oath that he is running his motor garage since last about 20 years. He has deposed that from 25.08.1991 to 096.09.1991, the Jeep Car No.GAT-8645 was with him for making of engine. He has also given certificate to that effect and bills which are at Exhs.43 and 44. In the cross-examination, it has come on record that he has given the bills to the owner of the jeep and not to the Insurance Company and also come on record that they are maintaining the record from which date to which date the vehicle was remained in garage for repairing. He has denied the facts that he has given the documents Exhs.43 and 44 to frustrate the claim of the complainant.
6. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error in dismissing the claim petitions of the appellants. Apart from that learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to show anything from the record to take a different view in the matter. Therefore, I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition.
7. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.] pawan Top