- (1.) The appellants-claimants are aggrieved by the award dated 31.7.2013 passed by the MACT, Gangapur City, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed their claim petition.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 2.11.2010, around 6:00 PM, Rajanti was returning back hom from her farm. According to the claimants, when she got down from the bullock-cart, she was suddenly hit by a Messey Ferguson tractor, bearing Registration No. RJ-25-RA-4545, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, Amer Singh. Due to the accident, she suffered severe injuries; during her treatment in the hospital, she expired. According to the claimants, Gyan Singh and Dayal, were eyewitnesses of the accident. Since, the appellant No.1 lost his wife and appellants No. 2 and 3 lost their mother, they along with in-laws of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to support their petition, they examined three witnesses, and submitted forty-three documents. In turn, the respondents examined a single witness, and submitted a single document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal before this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions before this Court:- Firstly, the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that there was an inordinate delay in filing of the FIR. Since, the inordinate delay had been explained by the appellant No.1, the lodging of FIR could not be said to be 'delayed'. Secondly, in the admission ticket, it was claimed that Rajanti had fallen from the bullock-cart and one of the wheel of the bullock-cart had gone over her , thereby causing injuries. However, according to the learned counsel, the said statement was given as Rajanti was admitted in the Hospital by other relatives, and not by the appellant No.1. In fact, when she came down from the bullock-cart, she was hit by the tractor whose tyre went over her. Therefore, a wrong fact has been noted in the admission and discharge tickets. Thirdly, that since the Motor Vehicles Act is a social beneficial piece of legislation, the burden to prove the accident does not lie on the claimants, but lies on the respondents. Therefore, the benefit of social beneficial piece of legislation should have been extended to the appellants. Lastly, although the learned Tribunal has observed that Gyan Singh (A.W.2), who claimed that he had noted the number of the offending vehicle, could not write down the numbers or read the numbers when the court had asked him to do so, but the fact remains that it was his first appearance before a court. Thus, he was too nervous to follow the directions given by the court. Hence, the learned Tribunal has erred in not believing Gyan Singh (A.W.2), who was an eyewitness of the accident. Therefore, according to the learned counsel the impugned award deserves to be interfered with.;