C.R. Sarma, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 16.5.2000, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in TS (MAC) No. 387 of 1997. By the impugned judgment and order aforesaid, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the said claim case, filed by the Appellant. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the Appellant has come up with this appeal challenging the correctness of the impugned judgment and order aforesaid.

2. I have heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Datta, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

3. The Appellant's case, as may be necessary for disposal of this appeal, in brief, is stated below:

4. On 26.4.97, the Appellant, along with other passengers, was proceeding to 'Killa' from 'Udaipur' in his own vehicle, bearing registration No. TRT-1103 (g) which was driven by him. When the said vehicle reached a place called 'Raiyabari' bazar, suddenly a big tree had fallen on the said vehicle causing injury to the Appellant. According to the Appellant, he sustained injuries on his right ear, forehead and other parts of his body. The said vehicle, at the relevant time, was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. the Respondent. The Appellant, who sustained injuries in the said vehicular accident, filed a claim case, being T.S. (MAC) case No. 380 of 1997 seeking compensation of Rs. 19 lakhs.

The Appellant's claim was contested by the insurer i.e. the Respondent by filing a written statement. In its written statement, the insurer denied the Appellant's claim that the Appellant had sustained the injuries in a vehicular accident.

5. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for determination:

i) Whether the Petitioner sustained injury in a vehicular accident on 26.6.97 at about 6.30 a.m. at Raibabari bazar on Udaipur-Killa road due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. TRT-1103 (Jeep)?

ii) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get compensation, if so what should be the amount of compensation and who shall be held liable for payment?

6. In support of his claim, the Appellant, as claimant examined himself and one Medical Officer, namely, Dr. A.K. Mahapatra, who, had examined him. The Respondents declined to examine any witness. Having heard both the parties and considering the materials on record, the learned trial Judge decided the issue No. 1 in negative, holding that the injuries sustained by the Petitioner, due to fall of a tree on the vehicle, could not be said to be injuries sustained in a vehicular accident. With the above findings, the learned trial Judge dismissed the claim case.

7. Dissatisfied with the findings and decisions, rendered by the learned trial Judge, the claimant, as Appellant, has come up with this appeal, challenging the correctness of the findings of the learned trial Judge.

8. Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner, taking me through the materials on record and the memo of appeal has submitted that the learned trial Judge committed error by failing to appreciate that the injuries sustained by the Petitioner, due to fall of a tree on the vehicle during the course of the use of the vehicle, amounted to accident and that the injuries sustained by the Petitioner was the injuries arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the injuries, sustained by the insured, amounted to an accident involving the concerned vehicle and as such the learned trial Judge ought to have decided the said issue in favour of the Appellant.

9. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the following decisions:

(1) Grant Appellant v. National Coal Board: 1956 (1) A.CC. 649;

(2) Challis v. London and South Western Railway Co.: (1905) K.B. 154

(3) Oriental Insurance Co. v. Arun D