- (1.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition vide judgment dated 19.10.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, the appellants have approached this Court.
(2.) Shortly, the facts of the case are that on 4.4.2007, when Sheo Nath, was going on motorcycle, along with Nahnu Ram, a Jeep, bearing registration No. RJ 29 UA 0086, being driven by respondent No.1, in rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle. Consequently, while Nanhu Ram sustained injuries, Sheo Nath died. Since the claimants-respondents lost their sole bread earner, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The respondents filed their reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made by the claimants. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues. In support of their case the claimants-appellants adduced oral and documentary evidence. On the other hand, the respondent No.3, the Insurance Company, did not adduce any evidence, but did exhibit two documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 19.10.2010, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. Nawal Singh Sikarwar, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently contended that the reasons given by the learned Tribunal are misplaced. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition ostensibly on the ground that the number of the offending vehicle, as given out in the claim petition, do not match with the number of the vehicle given out in the First Information Report which was registered two days after the alleged accident. Secondly, the make of the vehicle has been described differently by the eye-witnesses and their description does not tally with the recovery memo of the offending vehicle. According to the learned counsel, the accident had taken place on 4.4.2007, yet the testimonies of the eye-witnesses were not recorded till three years latter. Therefore, the description of the vehicle is at variations due to flux of time and due to the lapse of memory. Thirdly, in case the appellants wanted to falsely implicate the offending vehicle, they would not have lodged the FIR just two days after the alleged accident. Therefore, the learned counsel has pleaded that the judgment should be set aside.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment.;