JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Achariya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. R.C. Paul, learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended) against the Judgment and Award dated 09.03.2015 passed by the MACT No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1504/2009.

3. On 08.05.2009, the claimant was travelling in a motor cycle bearing Regd. AS-01-AE-3101 as pillion rider. A Santro car bearing Regd. No. AS-01-S-6460 knock the motor cycle from behind. The claimant sustained injuries. Therefore, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/-.

4. The insurance company contested the claim case by filing a written statement. The insurance company denied the involvement of the car bearing Regd. No. AS-01-S-6460 in the accident. However, it was admitted that the insurance policy of the Santro car was valid on the date of the accident.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues-

i. Whether the injured Hritokesh Patgiri sustained injuries due to motor vehicle acceding involving bearing Regd. No. AS-01-S-6460 (Santro car) on 08.05.2009 while he was travelling by the motor cycle as a pillion rider?

ii. Whether the vehicle in question was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner?

iii. Whether driving licence and insurance policy were valid on the day of accident to cover up the accident?

iv. Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation?

6. The claimant examined 2(two) witnesses. The contesting insurance company did not examine any witnesses.

7. On the basis of the evidence on record, the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/-. The tribunal also directed that the said compensation shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till full payment.

8. The present appeal has been filed on the ground that the tribunal disbelieved the fact that the he had sustained 50% disability because of the injuries sustained in the accident.

9. The appellant further pleaded the though he was an employee in a private firm and earned a salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month, the tribunal held that he failed to prove his monthly income.

10. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides.

11. The appellant produced the disability certificate dated 08.09.2011 as Exhibit-4 (1). In order to prove the document, the doctor was examined by the appellant. The doctor disclosed in his cross-examination that he did not treat the appellant. The tribunal held that Exhibit 4(1) was issued after two years of the accident and induct circumstance it is difficult to hold that the disability of the appellant was actually caused by the said motor accident. The evidence of the doctor also contributed to the opinion of the tribunal.

12. In order prove his income, the claimant produced one salary certificate as Exhibit-5 but this document was not proved by any witnesses. Therefore, the tribunal notionally held the income of the appellant to be Rs. 3,000/- per month.

13. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. I find that the judgment of the tribunal is a reasoned judgment. The disability certificate was issued after two years of the accident. Naturally, it will be a herculean task to prove that the claimed disability is as a result of the accident involving the Santro car bearing Regd. No. AS-01-S-6460. Moreover, whenever a person claims the existence of fact he must prove that the said thing exists. The appellant claimed that he used to earn Rs. 4,500/- per month. But that fact was not proved by the appellant.

14. For the said reasons, this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit.

15. The appeal stands dismissed.

16. Send back the LCR immediately.