- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the impugned award dated 31st May, 2011 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aklera, District Jhalawar, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant appellant.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant canvassed that the strict proof was not required to prove the accident having been committed by the particular vehicle and our legislation being a beneficial legislation, the Court is required to take a lenient view in such matters. Hence, the claim petition needs to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set-aside. He has cited the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Bimla Devi and Others Versus Himachal Road Trans. Corpn. and others reported in 2009 ACJ 1725 and Nepal Singh Versus Upender Singh reported in (2008) 7 Supreme Court cases 334 in support thereof. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the impugned award, it is found that the Presiding Judge of the Tribunal was cautious enough to take care of all these pronouncements and he is found to have adopted that very approach, which is required to be adopted in the case of claim petitions. The learned Tribunal in its impugned judgment and award observed that AW-2 (Rang Lal) was stated to have seen the number of the motor cycle on the date of occurrence, but in his cross-examination, he admitted that he was illiterate and did not even know the number of his motor cycle. The learned Tribunal further observed that Phool Chand, the lodger of First Information Report stated that he and Puri Lal were standing along-with with stilled tractor near Jhikdiya Ki Puliya, whereas Rang Lal (AW-2) stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC that at about 7 7.30 PM, he and Puri Lal were standing on Aasalpur road near village Aasalpur. These contradictions in galore led the evidence of these witnesses unworthy of credence and the fact of accident with motorcycle untrustworthy. Having considered the evidence, the learned Judge of the Tribunal observed that how one person Puri Lal could remain present at two different places along-with different persons at one point of time. The learned Tribunal having analyzed the matter in detail, rightly found that no death was caused by the alleged vehicle. The impugned award is well merited, based on cogent finding, with which I fully concur and I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award. For these reasons, the appeal fails and the same being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.;