1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 21.09.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Navsari in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 431 of 1995 so far as the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
3. It is the case of the appellant that on 25.02.1995 while the appellant was riding his motorcycle bearing registration no. GTN 8472, another motorcycle bearing registration no. GJ- 15-H-1695 being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and dashed with the motorcycle of the appellant as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries on various parts of the body. The appellant therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the entire facts of the case and evidence on record and thereby erred in dismissing the claim petition. He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant failed to establish that he sustained injuries in a vehicular accident inspite of the fact that the Tribunal had not framed any issue in this regard. He submitted that the Tribunal erred in not taking into consideration the evidence on record which was sufficient to prove the accident and the involvement of the vehicle. In support of his submissions, Mr. Thakkar has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Pravinbhai H. Patel reported in 2008(2) GLH 603 wherein para 7 reads as under:
“7. It is required to be noted that even no issue has been framed by the learned trial Court with respect to exercise of powers by the Corporation under Section 231 of the B.P.M.C.Act, which are referred to hereinabove. Thus without raising issue with respect to exercise of powers by the Corporation under Section 231 of the B.P.M.C.Act, the learned trial Court could not have pronounced the judgment on the point for which no issue has been raised. Under the circumstances also impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned restraining the Corporation from demolishing the suit structure under Section 231 of the B.P.M.C.Act is not sustainable and requires to be quashed and set aside. Under the circumstances, impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court requires to be quashed and set aside, firstly, on the ground that relief which is granted by the learned trial Court is beyond the relief prayed by the plaintiff and secondly on the ground that impugned judgment and decree has been passed and the judgment has been pronounced by the learned trial Court on the point on which no issue has been raised.”
5. Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Rajni Mehta for the respondent supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for. He submitted that the complaint was filed after almost one month. He submitted that as regards non framing of issues, rules of CPC shall not strictly apply in case of Motor Accident Claims Petitions. He submitted that it is for the claimant to prove the accident which is not done in the present case.
6. 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 there was no nexus between the injuries sustained by the appellant and the alleged accident. The Tribunal considered the medical certificate which do not reveal anything about the alleged vehicular accident. The doctors at the hospital were not informed about the accident. The complaint was lodged after almost a month and no plausible explanation is given regarding the said delay. The Ex. 43 which is the file of Dr. Bharat Jani starts after the complaint is lodged. Nothing is pointed out before this Court to take a contrary view. The decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant shall not be applicable on the facts of the present case. The appellant has failed to prove the alleged accident. 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.
7. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//