Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) THE instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant -claimant against the judgment dt. 15.7.1998 whereby the claim application filed by the claimant under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the injuries allegedly suffered by him in a road accident was rejected. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a claim application before the Tribunal pleading therein that he was coming from Jaipur to Churu on 29.11.95 in a Tempo No. RJ. 10 -P -0859. The tempo was driven by its owner cum driver Ramdev Singh in rash and negligent fashion and near Fatehpur on the Churu Highway, it turned turtle. The appellant was crushed under the tempo and received numerous injuries. An information of the accident was given at the Police Station Kotwali, Fatehpur. Thereafter, the appellant was referred for treatment to the hospital at Sikar and a steel rod had to be inserted in his left leg. He also got himself treated at the Orthopedic Hospital, Delhi.
(2.) THE appellant filed a claim application under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking total compensation of Rs. 1,37,579/ -. The respondent No. 2 owner of the tempo in question filed a written statement admitting the averments made in the claim except the allegation of rash and negligent driving. It was specifically mentioned in the written statement that the vehicle was insured and thus the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation. The respondent Insurance Company filed a written statement claiming that the accident did not occur as claimed by the appellant and thus the claim should be rejected. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: - (1) As to whether the respondent No. 2 Ramdev Singh drove the tempo No. RJ 10 P -0859 rashly and negligently in the night intervening on 29.11.1995/30.11.1995 and as a result thereof, the tempo met with an accident causing injuries to the claimant? (2) As to whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 1,37,579.60/ -? if yes, then apportionment amongst the respondents? (3) Relief? Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the non -claimants The learned Tribunal whilst deciding the issue No. 1 noted that the criminal case as regards the accident was registered on the basis of Parcha Bayan of the claimant. The Parcha Bayan was exhibited before the trial Court as Ex. P -48 wherein it was specifically stated by none other than the appellant himself that he was proceeding from Salasar Balaji in his three wheeler with his friends Jaypal, Manoj, Hari Singh and Gopi Ram. He himself was driving the three wheeler. When they reached near Fatehpur, a fallen trunk of Babool tree was lying on the road. He tried to avoid the same and in that process, the three wheeler ran into a pothole on the road and turned turtle. This Parcha Bayan was not disputed by the appellant in his testimony. The Tribunal concluded that while filing the claim application, the name of the driver was fraudulently projected as Ramdev Singh who is none else than the appellant's brother. The claim application was filed by pleading rash and negligent driving of Ramdev Singh so as to make the Insurance Company responsible for bearing the burden of the award. Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the claim holding that the appellant filed the claim application with a false and fraudulent averment that Ramdev Singh was driving the tempo at the time of the accident. It was concluded that the appellant was himself driving the tempo and the accident occurred due to his own negligence. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) MR . Mankad, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the appellant himself driving the vehicle at the time of accident is perverse and deserves to be set aside. As per the learned counsel, the appellant gave ample explanation for the discrepancies appearing in the police documents regarding the name of the person who was driving the tempo at the relevant time. He submits that the appellant gave positive evidence before the Tribunal to the effect that the tempo was being driven by Ramdev Singh at the time of accident. Ramdev Singh, the non claimant himself appeared in the evidence and admitted that he was driving the tempo when the accident happened. Thus, he submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal for rejecting the claim are perverse and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.;