IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 529 of 2007 Mohd. Sahid & another … Appellants Vs Yusuf Khan & another … Respondents Sri S.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 02.08.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 63 of 2005, Mohd. Sahid & another Vs Yusuf Khan & another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.12.2004, Mohd. Sahid was going in Canter No. UP04A/0188 from Jaspur to Moradabad. At about 04:45 a.m. when, he reached near Thakurdwara-Moradabad Raod, village Begampur, due to traffic kanbaye, he parked his canter on the said of the road and sit inside the canter, suddenly, a truck bearing registration No. HR38T/7786, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the canter of the injured, due to which, he sustained multiple injuries on his body. He was admitted in the Government Hospital, Moradabad and thereafter he was referred to Sai Hospital, Moradabad for better treatment. According to the claimant he had spent till date Rs. 1,50,000/- on his medical treatment. Therefore, he filed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation. 2 3. Thereafter, notices were issued to the opposite parties. On the receipt of the notices, the opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing their separate written statements before the Tribunal. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the appellants vide judgment and order dated 02.08.2006. 5. Feeling aggrieved, by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimants/appellants have come up in appeal for enhancement before this Court. 6. Heard Sri S.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the Tribunal has committed error while dismissing the claim petition of the appellant. He has submitted that the Tribunal without assessing the evidence available on record properly and dismissed the appeal only on the presumption basis. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set and the appellants are entitled to get a compensation for a sum of Rs. 3.00 lacs. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has made the rival contention before the Court and has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal of the 3 claimants/appellants. The claimant could not produce any evidence, which may suggest that the injuries received by the appellant are caused due to that accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal of the claimants. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I have gone through the record. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the Tribunal decided issue No. 1 relating to the rash and negligent driving. The appellant has not produced any cogent and reliable evidence before the court below which may connect the accident and injuries of the appellant/injured. Mohd. Sahid (P.W.1) has deposed in his statement that due to Kanbye, he parked his canter on the side of the road and sit on the driver seat, suddenly, a truck came from behind and hit the said canter, due to which he received serious injuries. He has further deposed that the canter was damaged from behind and the front of the canter was also damaged more than behind. Mohd. Iqbal (P.W.2) – owner of the truck has also deposed that the canter was damaged from the side of the driver and he also deposed that the canter was also damaged from behind. The Tribunal relied upon the statement of these two witnesses as well as from the site plan prepared by the police came to the conclusion that the appellant/injured unable to prove his injuries. The question before the Tribunal is whether the appellant/injured received injuries on the same accident, or not? The Tribunal on the basis of these two witnesses who have nowhere stated how the canter damaged from the front side. It is not possible that a vehicle hit from behind but the same got damaged from front side more than the rear. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that without any collision from front side, the canter could not be damaged more than from rear and in the statement of the witnesses nowhere stated about the collision 4 from the front side. I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 12.06.2009 ASWAL