1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellants herein have challenged the award dated 26.07.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Navsari in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 492 of 1990 so far as the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
3. It is the case of the appellants that on 15.03.1988 while the son of the appellant no. 1 was returning home a bus bearing registration no. GRU 7778 being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit him as a result of which the appellant no. 1's son sustained injuries on various parts of the body and succumbed to those injuries. The appellants therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Mr. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellants 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 not believing the evidence of eye witness who has not been cross examined. Mr. Shah has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Kusum Lata and Others vs. Satbir and Others reported in 2011(2) TAC 1(SC) and in the case of Parmeshwari vs Amir Chand reported in 2011(2) TAC 737 (SC) and also in the case of Saroj and Others vs. Het Lal and Others reported in 2011(2) TAC 271(SC).
5. Learned advocate for the respondent has supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the complaint was lodged after eight months and it was mentioned therein that a bus was involved.
5. 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 the appellants have failed to prove that the accident in question happened because of the original opponent no. 1. The complaint was lodged after eight months. The first complaint at Ex. 22 is required to be considered wherein no specific particulars of the bus have been mentioned. Moreover, the complainant Rajeshkumar Chhabildas was not examined by the appellants. The decisions relied upon by the leaned advocate for the appellants shall not be applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case more particularly when the S.T bus was tried to be involved in the case after eight months. The Tribunal has not believed the case of the eye witness. The evidence of the witnesses do not corroborate with each other. 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.
6. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//