- (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) challenging the award dated 19.8.99 passed by the MACT, Jaipur City, Jaipur in MAC No. 246/92 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of the appellant-claimant.
(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sandeep Mathur that the Tribunal has mis-appreciated the evidence on record and dismissed he claim petition. According to him the FIR was not lodged as the vehicle in question was being driven by the brother of the appellant and the appellant was sitting as pillion rider on the said motorcycle. He also submitted that merely because the FIR was not lodged, it could not be said that no such accident had taken place. However, the learned counsel Mr. Prateek Sharma for the respondent-Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record rightly rejected the claim petition which does not call for any interference. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, it transpires that the appellant had not lodged any complaint before the police station with regard to the alleged accident which according to the appellant had taken place on 16.1.91. It also appears from the impugned award that the appellant had produced some injury certificate, however in the said certificate also there was no mention that the appellant had received injury due to any vehicular accident. The Tribunal has observed that there were material contradictions in the evidence of the appellant and the so-called eye-witnesses examined by the appellant to prove the accident. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, even if the FIR was not lodged by the appellant, the appellant could have mentioned this fact to the doctor, who had given him the treatment. In absence of any cogent and reliable evidence as regards the alleged accident, the Tribunal has rightly come to conclusion that the appellant-claimant had failed to prove that he had received the injuries out of the alleged accident in question. There being no illegality and infirmity or perversity in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, this court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;