Rakesh Tiwari and Anil Kumar Sharma, JJ. - (1.) THE appellants have challenged the award dated 25.4.2012 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Mathura in M.A.C. No. 518 of 2010 by way of this appeal, whereby his claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act for an award of Rs. 10 lacs on account of death of his minor daughter in motor accident has been dismissed by the claim Tribunal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award.
(2.) THE case of the claimant -appellants was that on 26.6.2010 the alleged deceased Km. Payal alongwith her family members was going to Nandgaon from Kosikala in Tempo U. P. 85X/9102 and when Tempo reached near village Jab at about 10.30 a.m. the driver of Max Pickup U.P. -85X/9060 driving the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed with the aforesaid Tempo. In the accident Km. Payal and Sattar died on account of injuries sustained by them and Suman @ Sona had suffered grievous injuries. The report of the accident was lodged with the police of P.S. Barsana, District Mathura and case was registered at Case Crime No. 416/2010, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304 and 427, I.P.C. The claimants pleaded that report of the accident was lodged by family members of deceased Sattar who did not know the name of Suman @ Sona and Km. Payal, so their names could not be mentioned in the F.I.R. It was alleged that Km. Payal suffered death on account of the alleged injuries on 26.6.2010. The F.I.R. was also lodged with the police on 26.6.2010 at 12.15 p.m. and Ram Charan submitted a report with the police on the same day at 4.30 p.m. vide G.D. report No. 29 that his daughter -in -law Sohna Devi, granddaughter Km. Payal and son Upendra were also travelling in the tempo and on account of injuries sustained in the accident Km. Payal was declared dead by the doctor in the hospital. The drivers, owners and insurers of both the vehicles were arrayed in the petition and they denied the death of Km. Payal in the instant accident. The learned Tribunal after recording evidence of the parties has concluded that the claimants have failed to prove that Km. Payal was travelling in Tempo involved in the accident and she died on account of injuries sustained by her in the accident.
(3.) ON careful perusal of the award, it appears that the alleged injuries sustained by Km. Payal were not got examined in any Primary Health Centre or Government Hospital. Further, no inquest report or postmortem examination report of the deceased was got conducted by her family members. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Noor Jahan and another, : 2006 (1) TAC 739 (Utt), to contend that in order to sustain the claim petition the filing of inquest report and postmortem examination report of the concerned deceased is not necessary. We have perused the judgment and find that on account of distinguished facts the ratio is not applicable to the instant case. In the case before the Uttaranchal High Court the deceased prior to his death were hospitalized in Haldwani and thereafter they were referred to Bareilly but they succumbed to the Injuries during transit. In the instant case, as stated earlier there is no medico legal examination report of Km. Payal nor it has been shown that she was admitted in any hospital for her treatment. In the charge -sheet pertaining to the accident against the driver of Max Pickup no mention has been made that deceased Km. Payal has also suffered death in the instant accident. The claimants did not examine any family member of the deceased who were travelling with her in the Tempo at the time of accident before the Tribunal.;