The appeal is preferred by the injured claimant against dismissal of the claim, by order dated 12th of April, 2005, by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Amravati in M.A.C.P.No.86 of 1998.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are that, the appellant (injured - claimant) was working with Land Records Department at Tiwsa as Superintendent of Land Record, in August, 1997. Unfortunately, he suffered injury over his left eye in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 15th of August, 1997 while he was travelling to Tiwsa in a Jeep along with one Haribhau Gogate and Chandrashekhar Nistane. It is the contention of the appellant that in the accident, Jeep driver as well as two more persons had died on the spot itself while the appellant suffered injuries and was shifted to Irvin Hospital, Amravati immediately after the accident. It is the contention of the appellant that as a result of accident there was 100% loss of vision of his left eye. The appellant had relied upon medical certificate issued by Dr. Neelima Pawade who certified 100% left eye visual loss of the appellant/claimant. It is further contended that the owner as well as driver of the offending vehicle i.e. truck, which is dashed against Jeep, had not filed written statement on the record. Only respondent nos. 5 and 6 had contested the claim before the Tribunal. However, the learned Member of the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the claim. Hence, this appeal is preferred.

3. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, the claimmant was immediately admitted to Irvin Hospital and he was in hospital for ten days. Being a government servant, he had claimed reimbursement for medical treatment and therefore, he is not c1aiming any compenstion for medial treatment. According to the learned Advocate for the claimant, due to the motor vehic1e accident, operation of left eye was advised by an eye specialist. Claimant had also suffered head injury which required 65 stitches and he was in the hospital of Dr. Neelima Pawade for three days. He had also received medical treatment from Dr. Satish Deshmukh - an eye specialist.

4. Learned Member of the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the motor vehicle accident is occurred on 15/8/1997 because of rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No.MXL 6826 owned by respondent no.2 - Mohd. Rafique. The Jeep bearing registration No. MH-30/8831 was owned by Shioprasad Kachrulal Laddha, r/o Risod, Distt.Akola. Respondent no.5 - National Insurance Co.Ltd. disowned the liability to make compensation, as according to it, the claimant was not immediately hospitalized and that there was no other injury to the left eye over or around it. According to the learned Advocate for respondent no.5 there would have been serious external injuries around left eye but no such injury certificate was on record. It is also contended that there is no sufficient evidence to believe that the appellant/claimant suffered injury due to motor vehicle accident concerned. It is not in dispute that as on the date of accident the c1aimant was nearing his retirement and that he had taken voluntary retirement on the ground of his ill-health due to the accident, but this version was not accepted by the learned Member of the MACT and therefore, claim was dismissed.

5. I have considered the evidence led in the claim petition by the appellant/claimant. At Exh.74, claimant/appellant had stated that accident occurred on 15/8/1997 at about 7.30 a.m. while he was travelling by Jeep from Panchavati Amravati to Tiosa along with other persons. When the Jeep was about 3 or 4 kms. away after Nandgaon, a truck coming from opposite direction, which was loaded and driven fast, dashed the jeep and claimant was unconscious on the spot due to head injury as well as injury to left eye and ratina of left eye was damaged. After the accident, the appellant was unable to see by left eye and he was being admitted in Irvin hospital at Amravati and was remai