Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/3843/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 3843 of 2010
======================================
RAMESHBHAI
NAGARDAS PRAJAPATI - Appellant
Versus
KHUMANSINH
UDESINH THAKOR & 2 - Defendants
======================================
Appearance :
MR
JM BAROT for the Appellant.
None for the
Defendants.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 22/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has
been preferred by the appellant herein – original claimant
challenging the impugned judgement and award dated 31/08/2010 passed
by learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Mehsana in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.1594 of 1995, by which, the
learned Tribunal has dismissed the said Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.1594 of 1995 preferred by
the appellant herein – original claimant.
2. The
appellant herein – original claimant had preferred Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.1594 of 1995 before Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Mehsana claiming
compensation of Rs.1 Lac alleging inter alia that he had sustained
injury in vehicular accident, which took place on 23/10/1995 and
alleging inter alia that when he was standing on the side of the road
with his daughter, one Jeep No.GJ-2-9268 driven by Opponent No.1
rashly, negligently and with full speed came and dashed with him and
as a result of which, he had sustained serious injuries.
3. On
appreciation of evidence and even considering the cross-examination
of the claimant – Prajapati Rameshbhai Nagardas, examined at Exh.22,
in which, he has admitted that the aforesaid jeep was not involved in
the accident but he had intentionally joined the said jeep. The
learned Tribunal by impugned judgment and award dismissed the
aforesaid claim petition by holding that it was doubt regarding the
involvement of the aforesaid jeep and that the claimant has failed to
prove involvement of Jeep No.GJ-2-9268. Being aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and award passed by the
learned Tribunal in dismissing the aforesaid claim petition, the
appellant – original claimant preferred the present First
Appeal.
4. Heard
Mr.Jayesh Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellant. Mr.Jayesh Barot, learned advocate appearing on behalf of
the appellant is not in a position to point out any evidence contrary
to the evidence discussed by the learned Tribunal. He is not in a
position to dispute the findings of the learned Tribunal, which has
been given on appreciation of deposition of claimant – Prajapati
Rameshbhai Nagardas, examined at Exh.22. He is also not in a
position to point out any contrary evidence. Under the circumstances
when the appellant – original claimant has failed to prove the
involvement of Jeep No.GJ-2-9268 and in fact claimant has
specifically admitted in the cross-examination that the aforesaid
jeep was not involved in the said accident but he had intentionally
joined the said jeep, it cannot be said that the learned
Tribunal has committed any error and/or illegality in dismissing the
aforesaid claim petition. It is to be noted that the complaint was
filed after a period of three days. Under the circumstances, no case
is made out to interfere with the impugned judgement and award passed
by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the aforesaid claim petition.
5. In
view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal
fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed.
[M.R.SHAH,J]
*dipti
Top