A.BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the claimant Chandra Bhan Srivastava. He claimed a sum of Rs. 80,040/- by way of damages and expenses incurred for treatment of injuries received during the accident while he was a passenger in Bus No. UPI 2455. The owners of the Bus were respondents 1 and 2, Badri Prasad Gupta and Ram Prasad, and the Bus was being driven by Ram Chandra, respondent No. 3. His case further was that the Bus was being driven rashly and negligently, inasmuch as it had left the road on the right side, injured an old man and then crashed against a tree. He became unconscious and suffered a fracture in his right leg and had to remain in hospital for some time. His further case was that he had lost Rs. 500/- which he had in his pocket at the time of the accident. He had spent Rs. 500/- on medicines; Rs. 200/- on attendants and Rs. 60/- on consultation. He claimed Rs. 54,000/- as compensation for agricultural loss of income for 15 years after retirement. He further claimed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as agricultural loss of income from the date of the accident to the retirement. He also claimed Rs. 19,000/- as loss of seniority in service, increment etc., and a sum of Rs. 2,040/- incurred by him on special diet from the date of the accident till 16-2-1979 on the advice of the doctor.
(2.) NOTICE of the claim is said to have been sent to the owners and the driver but only the driver appeared and contested the claim and not the owners. The driver Ram Chandra denied that there was any accident involving the Bus or that the claimant had received any injury during the course of the accident. He claimed of having driven the Bus on the date alleged or of having driven it rashly and negligently. He specifically raised a plea in his written statement that respondents 1 and 2 were not the owners of the Bus. Notice was issued to respondent No. 4, General Insurance Society Ltd. on whose behalf a written statement was filed by the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kanpur. They denied the factum of the accident and the liability of the Insurer. They also denied their liability to pay compensation and pleaded that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation. They specifically pleaded that in the absence of the particulars of the policy the answering respondent was not in a position to varify as to whether the vehicle was insured with the answering respondent. The Claims Tribunal framed as many is as 13 issued. It held that the claimant had not been able to prove that the Bus UPI 2455 was owned by Badri Prasad Gupta. The Tribunal held that Ram Chandra, respondent No. 3, was driving the Bus at the time of the accident and it was being driven rashly and negligently by him. On the question whether the claimant was travelling in the said Bus and had received injuries, the Tribunal held that the issue had not been proved according to law and decided it in the negative. It held that the claimant had not examined any doctor, who had either examined him or prepared injury report or treated him. The Tribunal observed that the solitary testimony of the claimant would not be regarded as sufficient for proving the injury as alleged. The Tribunal further held that the claimant had not filed any document to prove that he was a Government servant at the time of the accident. Regarding service of notice on respondents 1 and 2 postal receipts of sending notice by registered post were filed, but the acknowledgment cards were not proved according to law. The Tribunal held that the claimant failed to prove service of notice and as such his claim could not succeed. The claim was, however, held not to be barred by time. The Tribunal further held that the claimant filed a risk note but he neither proved it nor had it been admitted by the counsel for the opposite parties. On these findings, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the claimant was not entitled to any amount from any one was claimed, and the petition was dismissed with costs.
(3.) IN this appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Yatindra Singh, argued that the Tribunal erred in law and facts in dismissing the claim petition. He urged that the evidence on record had not been properly appraised. He further urged that the claimant bad received injury in his right leg in the accident and inspite of the finding by the Tribunal that the Bus was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 3, no compensation had been awarded to the claimant. He further urged that respondents 1 and 2 were the owners of the Bus and they had not entered appearance nor contested the matter. The finding of the Tribunal that the claimant had not been able to prove that they were the owners of the Bus was erroneous, however, during the course of the agreement, he moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to take on record a certified copy of registration issued by Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Admn), Banda, which showed that Shri Badri Prasad Gupta was recorded as the owner of the Bus UPI 2455. It was urged that this paper could not be filed earlier, as he was informed by his counsel that since the owners were not disputing their ownership, it was not necessary to file any document or to give any oral evidence about the same. We have rejected this application by a separate order today.;