1.0 This Appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 12.12.2000 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Valsad at Navsari in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.335 of 1991 whereby the said claim petition came to be dismissed.
2.0 On 14.01.1991 at about 22.00 hours the appellant was travelling from Bilimore to Valsad in Car No.G.Q.O 9098 along with his wife, brother and two children. When the car reached near Majigam he saw a truck accident on the west side of the road. He therefore stopped the car and he was called by a police man to near the truck. He went near the truck keeping his car’s back read lights on. At that time motor vehicle bearing No.D.B.S 39 came from Valsad side and dashed with him. He therefore sustained injuries. He therefore filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ by way of compensation. The said application came to be rejected.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal wrongly came to the conclusion that since the complaint was filed by his wife after some days, the contents of the complaint does not prove the accident ignoring the fact that the complaint and panchnama both were exhibited and not challenged by the advocate of the Insurance Company of the vehicle involved in the accident. He submitted that the Tribunal also erred in law in not accepting the exhibited documents and oral evidence of the claimant which clearly establishes the factum of accident and injury sustained by the appellant which do not require any further Corroboration by other evidences. He therefore submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed.
4.0 From the evidence on record it is clear that the name and address of the driver of motor vehicle bearing No.D.B.S 39 were not mentioned in the title clause of the petition. Admittedly the appellant had not made any efforts to bring the name and address of the driver of the vehicle in question. In short the appellant has failed to prove that the driver of motor vehicle No. D. B. S. 39 was negligent in driving the vehicle. No witnesses were also examined at the instance of the appellant. It was also found that the plea taken by the appellant in his claim petition and the facts stated in the deposition at Exh.40 are totally contradictory. The appellant could have examined his wife Nainaben, brother Dipakkumar and his friend Usman Gani to prove the case. This was also not done. The alleged incident occurred on 14.01.1991 and the complaint was lodged on 22.01.1991. Even in the complaint the name and address of the accused were not shown. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal.
5.0 Thus, the appellant failed to establish his case before the Tribunal. Even before this Court the appellant could not persuade this court to take a different view of the matter. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal.
6.0 In the premises aforesaid I do not find any merits in the appeal. The same is therefore dismissed.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) niru*