fa1554.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 13 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1554 OF 2010 SHAIKH NADEEM SHAIKH AHMED VERSUS ANIL SADASHIVRAO KAMBLE AND ANR ... Mr. P.C. Mayure h/f Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, advocate for respondent no. 2. ... CORAM : A. V. POTDAR, J. Dated: November 21, 2011 PER COURT : 1. None appears for the appellant when called. Appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution. ( A. V. POTDAR, J. ) LATER ON : 1. Order of dismissal passed in the morning session is hereby recalled. fa1554.10 2 2. Heard Mrs. A.N. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.C. Mayure, learned counsel holding for Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 3. Perused record and proceeding received from the court below. 4. This appeal is filed raising challenge to the judgment and award passed by MACT Parbhani in MACP No. 30/2008 filed under section 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,20,000/- as the claimant sustained permanent disability during the alleged accident which took place on 6-6-2007. Claimant was travelling in Innova car from Shridi. The car met with an accident as the driver lost balance and car dashed near Karnawal bridge due to flash of beam of head light on the eyes of the driver of the offending vehicle. It appears that the claim is resisted by the respondents denying all the responsibilities. Even the respondent has admitted ownership of the offending vehicle, denied the averments about the accident, injuries caused to the claimant and the nature of injuries fa1554.10 3 including the expenditure incurred by the claimant. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed at exh. 21. During trial, claimant examined himself only and closed his evidence. Evidence of the claimant discloses the nature of injuries sustained by him during the accident which are supported by the injury certificate produced on record by the claimant. Document produced on record i.e. injury certificate is denied by the contesting respondent i.e. insurance company and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. It is a matter of record that to support the injury certificate no medical evidence of the doctor who has treated the claimant is adduced before the court below. In paragraph no. 9 of the judgment, it is observed that it is well settled principle that when the claimant/victim claiming injuries are not admitted by the contesting respondent then it is for the victim claimant to examine doctors who had occasion to examine/treat him for the injuries sustained by him. In absence of consistency in the material on record about nature of the injuries and for want of examination of any of the doctors who had fa1554.10 4 issued injury certificate to the claimant, the claimant failed to prove that in the alleged vehicular accident he sustained injuries attracting the provisions of section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tribunal recorded finding on other issues in the negative as the injuries allegedly sustained by the claimant were not proved. 6. Considering the evidence adduced before the court below I do not find any fault with the findings recorded by the tribunal while dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant / claimant. As no fault is found with the judgment impugned, appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ( A. V. POTDAR, J. ) ... dyb