- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. This is claimant's appeal un der Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned Award dated 23-06-2000 passed by Motor Ac cident Claims Tribunal, Chamoli in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 22 of 1996, whereby the appellant's claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the claimant could not establish the identity of the offending vehicle.
(2.) APPELLANT Smt. Shaila Bhatt claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/ - for the death of her husband Jagdish Prasad Bhatt in the motor accident on 20-10-1993, when he was dashed by the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No. UP 07/b-9254 resulting in serious in juries to him, which led to his death. The claimant, further, pleaded that deceased Jagdish Prasad Bhatt used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month as a photographer. The owner and insurer of the of fending vehicle bus contested the claim. The owner denied his liability to pay any compensation to the claimant on the plea that his bus bearing registration No. UP 07/b-9254 was not involved in the accident, whereas the insurer denied its liability to pay compensation on the plea that the bus was being plied in breach of the policy conditions and the driver of the bus was not holding a valid driving license. The Tribunal, on the evidence led by the parties, though held that claim ant's husband Jagdish Prasad Bhatt died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident on 20-10-1993, dis missed the claimant's claim petition on the ground that the claimant could not establish that the bus of respondent No. 1 Vijaypal Singh bearing registration No. UP 077 B-9254 was involved in the ac cident.
(3.) MR. Rajendra Dobhal, the Seamed counsel for the appellant vehemently ar gued that the Tribunal has erred in dis carding the claimant's evidence and in dismissing the claim petition Mr. B. S. Negi, the learned coun sel for respondent No. 1 (the owner of the offending vehicle) and Mr. T. A. Khan, the learned counsel for respond ent No. 3 (the Insurance Company), on the other hand, supported the Award and contended that, as the claimant's evidence could not establish the identity of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal was left with no other option but to dis miss the claim petition.;