1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 25.08.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 42 of 1992 so far as the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
3. It is the case of the appellant that on 15.10.1989 while the appellant along with his friend was going on a scooter, the friend being the driver and the appellant being the pillion rider, an auto rickshaw bearing registration no. GRT 3570 being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed with the scooter from behind 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. 1,00,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
4. Ms. Ahuja, 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 dismissing the claim of the appellant though the driver of the rickshaw has pleaded guilty before the criminal court. She submitted that the income assessed by the Tribunal though not awarded is on lower side.
5. Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the respondent insurance company supported the award of the Tribunal and submitted that the complaint was filed after thirty days and that the charge sheet was filed only for the purpose of Motor Accident Claims Petition. He submitted that the driver of the rickshaw has colluded with the appellant and therefore the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant.
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 documentary evidence in detail which say that the complaint is filed on 15.11.1989 which is exactly one month after the alleged accident. Moreover, the charge sheet is not corroborated by any independent evidence and therefore it cannot be inferred that the accident in question has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rickshaw driver. The appellant also did not inform the bone setter that the injuries are the result of the accident in question. 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//