IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 298 of 2007 National Insurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant Versus Satish Kumar @ Guddu & another … Respondents Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate for appellant Sri Deep Ch. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Dated: September 5, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the matter be finally decided. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.05.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 279 of 2006, Satish Kumar @ Guddu vs. Somesh Kumar Sah & another. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the claim petition are that claimant-Satish Kumar @ Guddu was employed as driver on Taxi No. UP-02-C-7867, owned by opposite party no. 1-Somesh Kumar Sah and on 7.3.2006 the said vehicle met with an accident in front of Taxi Stand, Bhotia Parao, Haldwani, District Nainital, due to which claimant sustained injuries on his person. The claimant alleged that about Rupees One Lac has been spent on his treatment, which is still going on. He also alleged that he used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month 2 by driving the vehicle. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation against the opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1-owner of vehicle in question has filed written statement denying some of the contents of claim petition. In the additional pleas, it has been pleaded that on the date of accident claimant was employed as salaried driver on vehicle No. UP-02-C-7867 owned by answering opposite party and at the time of accident his vehicle was standing on extreme left side of the road. It has also been pleaded that on the date of accident his vehicle was being plied with all valid papers and vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 2-insruance company and therefore the liability to pay the amount of compensation, if any, is of insurance company. Opposite party no. 2-insurance company has filed written statement and pleaded that it had not been given any information with regard to accident. It has also been pleaded that claimant did not disclose the true facts of the accident and he should have filed claim petition before Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. It has further been pleaded that on the date of accident vehicle in question was not being plied as per conditions of insurance policy. The claim petition filed against opposite party no. 2 is liable to be dismissed. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered 3 the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.80,000/- in favour of claimant, along with interest @ 6% per annum, vide judgment and award dated 08.05.2007. The Tribunal further directed the insurer of vehicle No. UP-02-C-7867, which was being driven by claimant- Satish Kumar @ Guddu, to pay the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the insurer of vehicle No. UP- 02-C-7867, which was being driven by claimant himself at the time of accident, has filed the present appeal before this Court. The record reveals that claimant, who suffered injuries during the course of accident, was driving vehicle No. UP-02-C-7867 as he was the driver of that vehicle. The case of the claimant is that when the claimant had stationed his taxi by the road side in order to take down the passengers from it, then one scooter which number could not be identified by the claimant, hit the claimant and on account of the same he sustained serious injuries on his person. As the scooter could not be identified, hence the name of owner, its driver and registration number of the scooter could not be mentioned in the claim petition. It is not a case in which the claimant suffered injuries on account of either rash and negligent driving of his own vehicle or during use of vehicle or by rash and negligent driving of another vehicle which was involved at the spot. However, the case of 4 the claimant is that he suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of scooter which could not be identified, therefore, if any fault is involved in the case the same lies with the driver of unidentified scooter and not with the claimant who himself was driving the vehicle which was insured by the insurance company-appellant before this Court. Under these circumstances, if the claimant has any grievance or he needs any compensation, then he should have approached the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner instead of filing the claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The proper course available with the claimant was to seek his redressal before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. I think that the claimant has adopted the wrong forum by filing the claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the instant case has also fell an error in decreeing the claim petition and by ignoring this aspect that the claimant had a remedy to approach the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. For the reasons stated above, I set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 08.05.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MAC No. 279 of 2006. In case, if the claimant wishes so, he may file his claim before Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner along with delay condonation application. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 08.05.2007 passed by Tribunal is set aside. 5 The statutory amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company with this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP