- (1.) R .P. Misra 1. The claim petition filed by the appellants was dismissed by the impugned order on the ground the claimants failed to establish that deceased died in the motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck No. U.T.A. 4786.
(2.) THE fact that the truck No. U.T.A. 4786 was involved in the accident was tried to be proved by the claimants by way of oral evidence. However, the Tribunal found that P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 produced on behalf of the claimants were not eyewitness. P.W. 2 though was produced as an eye-witness but his testimony was disbelieved on account of material contradiction in his statement. The Tribunal further found that no documentary evidence has been adduced which may have gone to establish that the truck in question was involved in the accident. Accordingly, the claim petition was rejected by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved the claimants filed the present appeal. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court the claimant-appellants filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 to bring on record the certified copy of FIR, certified copy of site plan of the accident and certified copy of charge-sheet as additional evidence.
(3.) THIS Court vide order dated 10th March, 2003 allowed the application and the aforesaid documents have been admitted as additional evidence.;