- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. 1. This appeal, preferred u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the award dated 25,09. 2003, passed by the Motor Accident Clam Tri bunal/add!. District Judge/111 Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar in M. A. C. Case No. 167 of 2002 whereby the claim of the claimants was rejected.
(2.) THE claimants, Jagat Singh and Smt. Hira Devi had filed a claim peti tion for compensation of Rs. 4,55,000/ - before the Tribunal alleging therein that on 27-05-2002 at about 4:00 p. m. when the claimant-Jagat Singh was sit ting as a pillion rider with his maternal brother and coming from Khatima to Ratanpur in scooter bearing No. U. P.-04/ B-8584, an offending truck bearing No. U. P. 04a/0329, which was coming from Sitarganj rashly and negligently, hit the scooter resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant-Jagat Singh in his leg. THE claimant-Jagat Singh was admitted to the Public Health Centre, Khatima and thereafter he was referred to Pilibhit for further treatment. It is alleged that the claimant- Jagat Singh was 33 years of age. THE claimant- Jagat Singh was earning Rs. 5,000/- from his dairy busi ness and agricultural farms at the time of accident. The respondents contested the claim petition and filed their separate written statements. The respondent No. 1- Niranjan Singh, in his statement ad mitted the accident and alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the scooterist. He had pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooterist as the Claimant-Jagat Singh, pillion rider and Vikram Singh- scooterist were in a drunken condition. It was further pleaded that the offending truck was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited on the date of acci dent. The respondent No. 2-United In dia Insurance Company Limited had pleaded in its written statement that the claimant had not impleaded Vikram Singh-who was the owner of the scooter in the claim petition. It was further al leged that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as the offending vehicle was being plied against the condition of the policy. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues.
(3.) AFTER recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal held that it was not established that the claimant-Jagat Singh sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck. It was further held by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooterist. At last, it was held that the claimants are not entitled to receive any compensation. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the claimants has filed this appeal be fore this court.;