FA/1730/2003 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1730 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= ASHOKBHAI MOHANLAL PANCHAL - Appellant(s) Versus HASANBHAI BUNDUBHAI SAIYED & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SANDIP C SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, DELETED for Defendant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 2, MR NK MAJMUDAR for Defendant(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 27/04/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record. FA/1730/2003 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. The appellant herein has challenged the award dated 28.06.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 300 of 1999 so far as the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. 3. It is the case of the appellant that on 05.04.1998 while the appellant was riding his bicycle, a lorry bearing registration no. GTS 7172 being driven by the original opponent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner hit him and thereafter ran over the toe of his right leg. The appellant therefore filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award. 4. Mr. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the entire facts of the case and evidence on record and thereby erred in dismissing the claim petition. He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands. 5. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, this court is of the view that considering the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that though the accident could have happened due to the negligence of the original opponent no. 1 as the version of the appellant has remained uncontroverted by the opponent no.1, the appellant has not produced relevant and cogent evidence as to the income and the employer. The evidence adduced by the appellant did not appear to be FA/1730/2003 3/3 JUDGMENT reliable or trustworthy. Considering the evidence and other records, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not give true evidence on oath and therefore the Tribunal observed that the appellant is not entitled to seek any relief in view of suppression of material facts. This court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal and therefore do not see any reason for causing interference. Nothing is pointed out before this Court to take a contrary view. 6. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No costs. (K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//