IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 151 of 2007 Vijay Pal Sharma & another … Appellants Vs Chaddha Sugars Pvt. Ltd. & others … Respondents Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the appellants Sri Partiroop Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Judgment :Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.(Oral) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and order dated 20.01.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 96 of 2004, Vijay Pal Sharma & others Vs Chaddha Sugars Pvt. Ltd. & others whereby the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.12.2003 at about 12.00 in the night, Deepak Chaudhary and Km. Monika was coming from Kalasmandap to their house on a cycle. When they reached near Station Road Radheshyam Building, suddenly, a truck bearing registration no. UP02D/1843, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the said cycle, due to which, both of them sustained serious injuries and succumbed to injuries. The claimants are the parents of the deceased – Km. Monika. Hence, an amount of Rs. 20.00 lacs was claimed as compensation. 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 denying the allegations made in the claim petition. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues in the claim 2 petition. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their cases. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding therein that truck No. UP02D/1843 was not involved in the accident vide judgment and order dated 20.01.2007. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the claimants/appellants preferred this appeal before this Court. 6. Heard Sri Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, Sri Partiroop Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence of Vijay Pal Sharma (P.W.1) and Vijay Kumar (P.W.2) and dismissed the claim petition without considering the evidence properly. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has also not considered the statement of Vijay Kumar (P.W.2) who was walking along with Ishwar Gupta on the date of accident, suddenly, a truck, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the cycle from the front side, due to which, Km. Monika Sharma and Deepak died on the spot. He has further submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below is liable to be dismissed and the claimants are entitled to get compensation in lieu of the death of the deceased – Km. Monika. 3 8. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that Km. Monika and Deepak have died in the road accident. The Tribunal in order to decide the claim petition framed two issues. While deciding issue No. 1, the Tribunal considered the First Information Report, which was lodged by Karanveer Singh who has mentioned in it the vehicle as ‘unknown vehicle’. Thereafter, another report dated 10.12.2003 was lodged by Vijay Pal Sharma, in which it has been mentioned that after enquiring from Ishwar Gupta and other persons he lodged the complaint against truck No. UP02D/1843. Thus from the evidence of Mr. Vijay Pal Sharma (P.W.1) it is clear that on the information given by Ishwar Gupta, he has lodged the complaint against the truck No. UP02D/1843, but it is evident from the record that the claimants/appellants have not produced Ishwar Gupta before the court below for his deposition, which creates doubt in the evidence of this witness. This witness has further stated that on the date of accident at about 12:00 in the night, he had gone to the shop of Ishwar Gupta in order to purchase some goods/material for hand-pump. His presence in the night on the spot also becomes suspecious. The appellants/claimants have to produce Ishwar Gupta before the court below in order to establish their case but they could not do so. In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the appellants/claimants. In my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the truck No. UP02D/1843 was not involved in the said accident as the appellants/claimants could not produce any evidence before the Tribunal, which may connect the said truck in the accident. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition of the appellants/claimants. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4 9. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 23.06.2009 ASWAL