SHIV MURTI SINGH Vs. NAWAB KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the Claimant Appellant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short "the Act") against the judgment and award dated 22.02.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Judge, E.C. Act, Unnao in Motor Accident Claim No. 124 of 1997 whereby his claim petition has been dismissed.

(2.) As borne out from the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and material available on record the appellant aged about 28 years was a cleaner on truck No. UTZ-4603 on 01.03.1997. While on way to Jagdishpur, District - Sultanpur from Shuklaganj, District - Unnao, a roadside halt was taken by the driver of the aforesaid truck. Thereafter, when the appellant at about 8.30 AM was going on the left side of the road to attend the call of nature a speeding truck bearing no. DL-1G/A-5603 belonging to Respondent No. 1 came from his back side and after hitting him sped away. As a result of this the appellant received serious injuries. Injury report indicates that besides having received certain minor injuries his right leg was crushed. The appellant was immediately taken by his driver on their Truck to Ursala Hospital, Kanpur, from where the appellant was referred and admitted to Regency Hospital, Kanpur on the same day, i.e., 01.3.1997. There a surgical operation was performed on his injured leg and he was subsequently discharged on 13.3.1997. Due to some complication having developed he was again hospitalized. This time he was admitted to R.K. Devi Memorial Hospital in Kanpur on 15.10.1997 where a second operation was performed on his injured leg and after few days of treatment he was discharged on 20.10.1997. The appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act alleging the accident to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. DL-1G/A-5603 . The Respondent No. 1, the owner of the aforesaid truck in his reply not only denied the accident to have been caused by his truck but also specifically alleged that on the day of accident his truck was in Etah and not anywhere the place of occurrence.

(3.) In order to prove his case the appellant got himself examined as APW.2 and inter alia gave an eye witness account of the accident in question. He also got his injury report filed through APW.1 Yadunath Singh Yadav, a pharmacist at Ursula Hospital, Kanpur where his injures had been recorded as a medico legal case.