Nagender Kumar vs. Nitu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.44 of 2011 Date of decision: 29.07.2016

Nagender Kumar …..Appellant

Versus

Nitu and others ….. Respondents

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral)

This appeal is directed against the award, dated 30th September, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., (for short, "the Tribunal") in Claim Petition No.120 of 2002, titled Nagender Kumar vs. Nitu and others, whereby the claim petition came to be dismissed, (for short the "impugned award").

2. Claimant Nagender Kumar filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act), for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition.

3. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents by filing replies and issues were framed.

4. The claimant, in order to prove his case, examined PW-1 Dr.Harish Behl and PW-3 Nand Kumar. The claimant also stepped into the witness box as PW-2. Respondents examined RW-1 Harish Kumar and RW-2 Ritu Naamdhari, as witnesses.

5. The Tribunal, after scanning the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led, held that the claimant had failed to prove that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and, thus, dismissed the claim petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

7. There is not an iota of evidence on the record to prima facie prove that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver, who was driving the car. Even no FIR was registered in regard to the accident. On the last date of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant was asked to produce any prescription slip or medical record, which may suggest that the claimant sustained injuries in the accident and remained under treatment for the same. Today, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant is not in a position to produce any such document.

8. The pleadings and proof of rash and negligent driving is the sine qua non for maintaining the Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

9. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the impugned award and the same deserves to be upheld. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

July 29, 2016 ( Mansoor Ahmad Mir ) (tilak) Chief Justice