- (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 20-03-2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tri bunal / 1st F. T. C. / Addl. District Judge Roorkee, District Haridwar in M. A. C. Case No. 80 of 2004 whereby the claim of the claimant was rejected.
(2.) THE appellant/claimant, Dheeraj Kumar had filed a claim petition u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs. 15,30,000/- before the Tribunal alleging therein that on 06-06-2004 at about 11:30 p. m. he was coming from Dahiyaki to his village Liberhedi alongwith Dharmendra Kumar of his vil lage in Maruti Car No. UGX-8485. When they reached near Uttam Sugar Mill, a Truck bearing No. U. P 12a-2151, being driven by its driver rashly and neg ligently, dashed the Maruti Car resulting multiple injuries on the person of Dharmender Kumar and the appellant/ claimant. Dharmender Kumar suc cumbed to his injuries. THE appellant/ claimant-Dheeraj Kumar also sustained the multiple injuries on his person. THE claimant-Dheeraj Kumar was admitted to Nursing Home, Muzzafarnagar from 08-06-2004 to 18-06-2004 and incurred a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards his treat ment. It was further alleged that the claimant- Dheeraj Kumar was 28 years of age at the time of accident and was earning a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month from agricultural farms. The respondents contested the claim petition and filed their separate written statements. The respondent No. 1 - Insurance Company, in its written statement has not admitted the claim petition for want of knowledge but ad mitted that the truck was insured with it; the claim petition was not maintain able, as the appellant/claimant has not impleaded the owner and driver of the Maruti Car; and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Car. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, the truck was driven against the policy condition. The respond ent No. 1 Arvind Kumar, owner of the truck pleaded in his written statement that the driver of the Maruti Car was rash and negligent at the time of the accident and as such, the said car was responsible for the accident. It was also pleaded that the claimant has not impleaded the owner and driver of the Maruti car. It was also pleaded that the driver of the truck was holding valid documents at the time of the accident and the truck was insured with the Insurance company, as such, the in surance company, is liable to pay the compensation, if any. 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 sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the truck rather it was established that the accident oc curred due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Car and the claimant has not impleaded the owner and the insurer of the Maruti Car in the claim petition. At last, it was held that the claimant is not entitled to receive any compensation. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the claimant has filed this appeal before this court.;