1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Gulab Singh Vs. Shamsher Singh & ors. SB CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 923/1999. Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. DATE OF ORDER: 6th November, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. K.N. Tiwari for the appellant. Mr. Virendra Agrawal for the respondent no.3. BY THE COURT: This civil misc. appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur (in short to be referred as, 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.295/96 whereby the claim petition of the petitioner has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has committed illegality in rejecting the claim petition, therefore, the findings recorded on issues no.1 and 3 requires reconsideration and the appellant is entitled to receive compensation as claimed in the claim petition. On the other hand, it has been contended that in an accident which took place on 18.1.1996, one Moti Singh had died. A claim petition was filed on his behalf before the learned tribunal. 2 Other persons, namely; Hanuman and Gulab Singh also filed claim petitions. The learned tribunal finding that there was no injury on the person of the appellant and one Gulab Singh, their claim petitions were rejected. It is contended that in the absence of evidence to show that they sustained injuries in the accident, the learned tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim petition of the appellant. I have considered the submissions made before me. It is to be seen that before the learned tribunal, three separate claim petitions were filed; one claim petition no.112/1997 by Smt. Geeta wife of deceased Moti Singh along with other legal representatives, claim petition no.11/1997 by Hanuman and claim petition no.295/96 by the present appellant, Gulab Singh. The learned tribunal consolidated all the three claim petitions as the same had arisen out of one accident and decided them vide judgment and award dated 5th March, 1999. In the claim petition, it was stated by the appellant that on 18.1.1996 while the appellant was taking tomatoes from his village to Delhi in a truck, at that time truck bearing no.HR-26-9719 coming from Delhi side in rash and negligent manner hit the mini truck No.RJ14-G_6304, as a result of which the mini truck over-turned. The appellant sustained injuries and one Moti Singh died. The respondents except the Insurance company (The Oriental Insurance Company) did not appear before the learned tribunal, therefore, exparte proceedings were drawn against them. The learned tribunal found that on 3 account of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing no. HR-26- 9719 by its driver the accident took place and Moti Singh died. At the time of accident the truck was being driven by its driver who was in the employment of respondent no.2 and no injury was sustained by Gulab Singh and Hanuman. This finding on issue no.1 is based on the evidence led before the learned tribunal and the learned counsel for the appellant could not point out as to in what manner the finding arrived at by the learned tribunal is illegal and is not liable to be relied upon. Issue no.3 was in relation to the entitlement of amount of compensation. Since by evidence it could not be established that on account of accident the appellant sustained injury, this finding again is based on facts. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the court to show that the finding recorded on this issue is erroneous. The learned tribunal, therefore, in my opinion, has correctly considered the matter in finding no merit in the claim petition filed by the appellant. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are not liable to be accepted and the same are rejected. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this misc. appeal is dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK),J. bblm