- (1.) Instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dt. 28/02/2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur in M.A.C.T.Case No.247/1995 whereby, the claim of the claimants-appellants has been rejected.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Rajendra Kumar and his wife namely; Lalita Devi both were coming on a cycle after seeing picture from Cinema Hall on 06/06/1995 and one Ramotar and his wife were also on a separate cycle. It is alleged that when they were on Sawai Madhopur to Chakchenpura road, at about 12.00 O. Clock in the night, a Roadways Bus bearing No.RJ-14-P.-1942, which was coming from Lalsote to Sawai Madhopur in high speed and which was being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, hit the cycles as a result of which Rajendra Kumar and his wife Smt. Lalita as well as Ramotar and his wife fell down due to which Smt. Lalita Devi wife of Rajendra Kumar sustained serious injuries and was taken to General Hospital at Sawai Madhopur where she expired in the night itself. An FIR to this effect came to be lodged with the concerned police station and the police, after investigation, filed charge-sheet against driver of the bus. Claim was also lodged before the Tribunal but the Tribunal, after taking note of the movement of the alleged bus, came to the conclusion that the accident did not occur on account of involvement of the said bus and accordingly rejected the claim, which is assailed herein.
(3.) Counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has entirely gone on the wrong direction as number of the bus was clearly stated by Rajendra Kumar. He further contended that the FIR was lodged and the police investigation also proved involvement of the said vehicle and charge-sheet was filed against Prabhu Lal, driver of the bus. He further contended that the Tribunal has disbelieved statements of various witnesses and in an improper manner. He further contended that the issue requires consideration and the order of the Tribunal deserves to be interfered with.;