IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 672 of 2006 Amar Singh … Appellant Vs Hardeep Singh & another … Respondents Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the appellant Sri P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the judgment and award dated 02.08.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 122 of 2004 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the claimant/appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.05.2004 at about 08:30 a.m., the claimant was coming on motorcycle, suddenly, when he reached near Stadium, Ramnagar Road, a bus bearing registration No. UP02B/4208, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the saidmotircycle, due to which, the claimant/appellant sustained serious injuries. He was admitted in the Chamunda Hospital, Kashipur. According to the claim petition, at the time of the accident, he was 15 years of age and spent Rs. 40,000/- on his medical treatment. Therefore, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statement before the Tribunal. 2 4. The opposite party No. 1 – Hardeep Singh has pleaded that the claimant was not possessing the driving licence on the date of accident. He has further alleged that the motorcycle was insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd., therefore, the liability of compensation lies upon the Insurance Company. 5. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim petition denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It has also pleaded that the driver of the motorcycle was not having the valid driving licence. The claimant did not made the party to the owner of the motorcycle in question, therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed against the applicant/Insurance Company. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the claimant on the ground that the claimant/driver was a minor and not having the valid driving liccence on the date accident vide judgment and award dated 02.08.2006. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 8. Heard Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 3 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal without considering the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the claim petition of the claimant. He has also contended that the driver of the bus in question, driving the bus in a very rash and negligent manner due to which, the claimant received injuries. He has further submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the medical bills submitted by the claimant before the Tribunal. 10. Sri P.C.Maulekhi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has invited my attention towards the claim petition, wherein the age of the claimant was mentioned as 15 years on the date of accident. He has submitted that the claimant/injured was minor and could not possess the driving licence on the date of accident, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition of the claimant. 11. In order to resolve the sole controversy, I have gone through the entire record available before me. After going through the entire record as well as hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition of the claimant/appellant. It is apparent from the perusal of the claim petition that the claimant was minor on the date of accident. Further from the perusal of the statement of Sri Pooran Singh (P.W.1) who has stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and the date of birth of the claimant is 25.03.1989. From the statement of the P.W.1, it is apparently clear that the claimant/injured was 15 years of age on the date of accident and in the minor age the claimant could not be issued valid driving licence. The statement of Rajiv Singh (D.W.1) who has stated in his evidence that the 4 bus was standing on the side of the road in order to get down the passengers. The claimant could not produce any evidence in order to revert the statement of D.W.1. Therefore, I am in total agreement with the findings of the Tribunal that the claimant/injured driving the said motorcycle in a very rash and negligent manner and collided with the standing bus. The claim of the appellant has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. I do not find any force in the present appeal. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 11.11.2008 ASWAL