IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 519 of 2005 Smt. Akla Devi … Appellant Versus Inder Singh & another … Respondents Sri B.S. Negi, Advocate for appellant Sri Chhatrapati Pant, holding brief of Sri T.A. Khan, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: August 12, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.9.2005 and award dated 27.9.2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Uttarkashi, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 22/2003, Smt. Akla Devi vs. Inder Singh & another, whereby claim petition filed by claimant was dismissed. Briefly stated the facts as narrated in claim petition are that husband of claimant-Sri Govind Ram was travelling to Lambgaon from Bhaldiyana by Bus No. U.M.E.-1158 as valid passenger. The said bus was being plied rashly and negligently by its driver, as a result of which near Motana at Bhaldiyana-Lambgaon Road it met with an accident and fell into a ditch. In the said accident, deceased- Govind Ram sustained injuries and succumbed to those injuries during treatment on 14.2.2003. The deceased was 54 years of age at the time of accident and used to earn Rs.4000/- per month from agriculture and animal husbandry and he used to 2 give 2/3rd out of that amount to his family. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.5,95,896/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum against the opposite parties. Opposite party no. 2-The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. contested the case by filing written statement and pleaded that amount of compensation claimed is excessive and exaggerated. It has also been pleaded that neither claimant is entitled to get any compensation nor insurance company is liable to pay any compensation. In the additional pleas, it has been denied that husband of claimant sustained any injury in the alleged accident and died due to those injuries and also denied that deceased was travelling as valid passenger in the alleged vehicle. It has further been stated that at the time of accident owner of vehicle was not having valid papers relating to his vehicle and driver of vehicle was not holding valid driving licence to drive the vehicle on hill routes and at the time of alleged accident the vehicle in question was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. The claimant did not produce any cogent evidence in support of income of deceased. Opposite party no. 1 did not file written statement, hence, an order was passed on 20.2.2004 by Tribunal to proceed exparte against him. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed following issues in the claim petition: 3 1. Whether on 22.12.1999 at about 2.10 p.m. when deceased Govind Ram was going to his home from Bhaldiyana in Bus No.U.M.E.-1158, near Motana at Bhaldiyana-Lambgaon Road the said Bus met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by its driver and fell into a ditch, due to which deceased-Govind Ram died? 2. Whether at the time of accident said vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 2 and its all papers were valid and effective? And his driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence? 3. Whether claimant is entitled to get any compensation on account of death of deceased-Govind Ram in the accident? If yes, how much and from which opposite party? Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The Tribunal after having considered the material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties dismissed the claim petition vide judgment and award dated 22.09.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the claimant-appellant has filed this appeal before this Court. Heard Sri B.S. Negi, learned counsel for appellant-claimant, Sri Chhatrapati Pant, holding brief of Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for 4 respondent no. 2-insurance company and perused the record. As far as issue no. 2 is concerned, the record reveals that opposite party no. 2-insurance company stated in its written statement that at the time of alleged accident owner of vehicle was not having registration certificate, permit, fitness certificate relating to his vehicle and driver of vehicle was not holding valid driving licence to drive the vehicle on hill routes and at the time of alleged accident vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. This accident was alleged to have been taken place on 22.12.1999 at about 2.10 p.m. The claimant filed permit of Vehicle No. U.M.E.- 1158 (paper no. 50C) which clearly shows that said permit was valid upto 27.9.2004 and insurance cover note (paper no. 51C) indicates that offending vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 2 upto 14.5.2000. The Photostat copy of driving licence (paper no. 53C) has been filed on record, which shows that on the date of accident driver of vehicle was holding valid driving licence. It is also clear from fitness certificate (paper no. 55C) that vehicle has been declared fit on 31.10.2001. The Tribunal after having considered the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that driver of vehicle was holding valid driving licence on the date of accident and it was also valid to drive the vehicle on hill routes and on the date of accident all the papers relating to vehicle were valid and effective and vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 2-insurance company did not 5 adduce any evidence in rebuttal which may discredit the authenticity of said documents. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. As far as issue no. 1 regarding factum of accident is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed all the evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter has recorded a categorical finding that husband of claimant sustained injuries in the accident which took place on 22.12.1999 at about 2.10 p.m. Now, it is to be seen as to whether deceased- husband of claimant had died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident or for any other reason. The record reveals that accident had occurred on 22.12.1999 and claim petition has been filed by claimant on 7.8.2003. The record further reveals that claim petition No. 3/2002, Govind Ram vs. Inder Singh & others, has been filed on behalf of Govind Ram on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. From perusal of order dated 3.5.2003 (paper no.15C) passed on order sheet available on record it reveals that claimant (since deceased) had died and none has prayed to make him as party and accordingly the case has been abated. The record clearly reveals that deceased- Govind Ram died after about three years and two months of the accident. The claimant stated that during the said period she got treated her husband, 6 but her husband died due to those injuries sustained in the accident. The record further reveals that after the accident injuries of Govind Ram have been medically examined at Government Joint Hospital, Tehri and four injuries were found on the person of Govind Ram. It was also found in the medical examination of Govind Ram that injury nos. 1 and 2 are simple and for injury nos. 3 and 4 doctor advised Govind Ram for x-ray, but it has not been done. The record further reveals that Govind Ram was admitted in hospital on 22.12.1999 and was discharged on 24.12.1999 and again he was admitted in hospital on 31.12.1999 and was discharged on 4.1.2000. The claimant filed discharge slip (paper no. 33C/1) issued by District Hospital, Tehri. Besides this, the claimant did not file any document which shows that after the accident treatment of her husband remained continued upto three years in hospital as well as at home. The Tribunal after having considered the evidence recorded a finding that deceased-Govind Ram had not died after a few days of accident, rather he had died after three years and two months of the alleged accident and nature of injuries which are mentioned in Medical Examination Report filed on record does not prove that Govind Ram died due to those injuries. The Tribunal further came to the conclusion that on 22.12.1999 at about 2.10 p.m. the husband of claimant sustained injuries in the accident, but he had not died due to those injuries on 14.2.2003, rather cause of his death might have been otherwise and therefore, the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation. I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard and the same deserves to be confirmed. 7 For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 22.09.2005 is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP