1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 20.07.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 85 of 1995 so far as the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
3. It is the case of the appellant that on 21.11.1992 while the appellant was travelling in a loading rickshaw bearing registration no. GJ- 1- T 6730 being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, the rickshaw turned turtle 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. 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. She submitted that the Tribunal has erred in relying upon the FIR and ignoring the evidence of the appellant. She submitted that the Tribunal has not correctly interpreted the panchnama of the place of accident at Ex. 23.
4.1 In support of her submissions, learned advocate has relied upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Nanhu Singh vs. Jaheer and Others reported in 2006 ACJ 803 and another decision of the Madras High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. G. Vijaya Kandiban and Another reported in 2007 ACJ 2824.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly not considered the evidence of the appellant which was an after thought and rightly relied upon the Panchnama and the FIR which corroborate each other. He submitted that even otherwise there is a specific stipulation in the policy providing that the policy will not cover use for carrying passengers in the vehicle except its employees. He has relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Tulsiben Panalal Joshi reported in 2001(1) GLH 237.
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 FIR in detail in which it is stated by the appellant himself that he had fallen down from the loading rickshaw in which as many as 10 passengers were travelling. The Tribunal has not accepted the evidence of the appellant on oath. Moreover, the panchnama of the scene of accident does not show that the rickshaw was in a turtled position. In fact in the FIR the appellant had stated that after he fell down from the rickshaw, the opponent no. 1 parked the rickshaw on the left side of the road which is supported by the panchnama. It is required to be noted that there are contradictory versions before the civil court and the criminal court.
6.1 As far as the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant is concerned, the same do not apply on the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as here the panchnama is also a vital piece of evidence which corroborates with the averments in the FIR. In fact the appellant has himself stated that he was returning after unloading goods and therefore was not travelling as an owner of the goods. 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.
7. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//