- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 19-05-1999 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 55 of 1994, passed by learned M. A. C. T. /iind Additional District Judge, Nainital, whereby the claim petition of the appellant, is dismissed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 16-07-1992, at about 7:00 P. M. , the appellant/claimant was coming from Kichcha to Haldwani in his scooter registration No. U. M. M. / 2669. When he reached near Mazar, a truck bearing registration No. U. H. T. /39, owned by respondent No. 1, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed at the scooter. Consequently, the appellant/ claimant fell from the scooter and re ceived head injuries. Some people took him immediately to Base Hospi tal, Haldwani, and got him admitted there. However, next day when his condition did not improve, he was taken to Delhi for further treatment. Due to the injuries received in the ac cident, the appellant/claimant has lost his hearing power and has become disabled. It is alleged in the claim pe tition that the claimant had to spend Rs. 2, 00, 000/- in his medical treat ment. A sum of total Rs. 5, 00, 000/-was claimed as amount of compensa tion by the claimant. It appears that during the pendency of the claim pe tition, the National Insurance Com pany was impleaded as respondent No. 2 as the aforesaid truck registra tion No. U. H. T. /39 was found to have been insured with the said Company on the date of the accident. The respondents contested the claim petition and filed their separate written statement. In the written state ment of respondent No. 1 it is admit ted that he is owner of the truck reg istration No. U. H. T. /39. It is also stated that the vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company. However, it is denied that the acci dent has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck. Rather, it is pleaded that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the scooterist. The re spondent No. 2, National Insurance Company, filed its separate written statement in which it is pleaded that no information of the accident was given by the owner of the vehicle to the answering respondent and, as such, provisions of Section 158 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were violated. It is also pleaded that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehi cles Act and as such the National In surance Company is not liable to make the payment of any amount of compensation. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Motor Acci dent Claims Tribunal: 1. Whether, the accident in ques tion was caused due to the rash and negligent driving on the -part of the driver of the truck No. U. H. T. /39? 2. To what relief, if any, the claim ant is entitled and from whom?
(3.) AFTER recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal found that it is not proved that the truck registration No. U. H. T. /39 was involved in the accident. And with that finding, the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by which, this appeal has been filed by the claim ant. We heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;