NAVEEN KUMAR Vs. GANGA SARAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant had instituted accident claim case (MACT Petition No. 14/09) on 06.01.2009 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 24.11.2008.

(2.) The averments on the basis of which he sought compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were that he was riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL -7S-AE-1553 (the motorcycle) on 24.11.2008 when at about 4 P.M. near Shyam Giri Mandir, Inter-State Bus Terminus Flyover, his motorcycle was hit from behind by a bus bearing registration No. DL-1PB-7654 (the bus). According to his case, the bus was driven negligently by the first respondent, it being registered in the name of the second respondent and insured against third party risk for the period in question with the third respondent. The first and second respondents, in spite of service, having due notice and having filed a joint written statement denying the involvement of the bus, did not participate in the trial. The claimant examined himself as a witness (PW-1), besides examining two more witnesses Hari Om Sharma (PW-2) and Dr. Arun Yadav (PW-3). The third respondent (the insurer), on the other hand, examined Mr. Manohar Lal Dhyani (R3W1). It may be mentioned here that R3W1 was a mechanical expert who had subjected the two vehicles to inspection, in the course of investigation into the corresponding criminal case registered by the police by First Information Report No. 337/08 by police station New Usman Pur (FIR).

(3.) The Tribunal rejected the evidence of the claimant (PW-1) to the effect that the accident had occurred upon the motorcycle being hit from the behind by the bus, it having been driven in a negligent manner. It instead took note of the mechanical inspection reports of the two vehicles (Ex. R3W1/A and R3W1/B) and concluded that if the collision had actually involved the bus hitting the motorcycle from the behind, the motorcycle would have suffered damage on the rear side, which was amiss. The Tribunal, thus, proceeded to hold against the claimant s case and dismissed his claim petition by judgment dated 05.11.2012. It is the said judgment which is assailed by the appeal at hand.