- (1.) Heard Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly, the appeal has been heard in their absence.
(2.) The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved against the judgment and award dated 20.12.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge-Xth/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faizabad in Claim Petition No.234 of 2002 whereby in an injury case a sum of rupees forty thousand and six hundred alongwith six per cent interest per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimant-respondents by means of award dated 20.12.2006.
(3.) Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the award has primarily raised three issues:- (i) It has been submitted that the tribunal has erred in relying upon the evidence of claimants witnesses specially when their name was not disclosed in the claim petition. It has been submitted that the case of the claimant witness indicated that both the claimants and the witness, namely Ram Surat were working together. However, this fact evidencing the name of Ram Surat was not disclosed in the claim petition. Since his name was not there in the claim petition, his evidence would be not beyond doubt and was not worthy of reliance. (ii) It has further been submitted that the tribunal has erred by relying on the statement to indicate that Mohalla Niyanwa and Mohalla Chowk in district Faizabad are contagious to each other. In absence of any pleadings or proof to the aforesaid extent merely to draw strength from his own personal knowledge, this could not have been included in the judgment and thus be doing so the tribunal has faulted. (iii) With the evidence which was led by the railway regarding the damage to the truck has not been considered and a finding has been given to the effect that the truck was shown to be damaged only from the front and not from the back and in the circumstances as narrated by the respective parties, the aforesaid finding becomes vulnerable; inasmuch as it is not based on the material available on record and for all the aforesaid reasons, the award is bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.;