1. - This civil misc. appeal has been filed by appellant-claimant Prakash Kumar @ Pukhraj being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.08.2010 passed by learned judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in Claim Case No. 48/2009, whereby the learned Tribunal rejected the claim petition as well as an application regarding "No Fault Liability" filed by the appellant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi by the appellant-claimant stating that on 06.11.2008 when the appellant was going to Pindwara on motorcycle bearing No. RJ-24-SB-0142, then opposite to the office of Panchayat Samiti, a JCB bearing No. RJ-24-EA-0087 belonging to the respondent No. 2 and driven by the respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently dashed against the motorcycle of the appellant, as a result of which the appellant-claimant sustained injuries and he became unconscious. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Pindwara. An injury report bearing No. 289 dated 06.11.2008 was prepared by the doctors. On 07.11.2008, the appellant was got admitted at Mehsana Hospital, where he remained hospitalized for 12 days. The treatment of the appellant continued for long at Mehsana, Ahmedabad, Gujrat Hospital, Sirohi, G.B. American Hospital, Udaipur, Bombay Hospital, Mumbai etc. The appellant was examined by the Medical Board and it has been stated in the report that the appellant sustained hemorrhage and on the left upper and lower limb muscle power of all groups of muscles were found to be 3-4 grade. It is further stated that when the appellant got some relief, he lodged an FIR of the incident on 05.12.2008 and on enquiry by the police authorities under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it was disclosed by the respondent No. 2 that on 06.11.2008 at the time of the accident, the JCB was being driven by the respondent No. 1 Dungar Ram.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the appellant-claimant filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 3,90,000/-. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint reply and admitted the factum of the accident. The respondent No. 3 also filed reply to the claim petition. On behalf of the appellant, he examined himself as A.W. 1 and produced as many as 124 documents in support of his claim. However, no evidence was led on behalf of the respondents.The learned Tribunal did not pass any order on the application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the appellant-claimant and after hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal vide the impugned judgment dated 20.08.2010 dismissed the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also rejected the application filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment dated 20.08.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant-claimant has preferred this civil misc. appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition of the present appellant. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal failed to look into the facts and record of the case and has also not considered the evidence led on behalf of the parties in the true perspective.The learned counsel further contended that respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the driver and the owner of the vehicle admitted the fact that accident took place on 06.11.2008 by their JCB although they denied the negligence on the part of the driver. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, thus, the factum of the accident is well established and proved beyond doubt. The appellant also stated on oath that the accident occurred and he could not file FIR immediately because soon after the accident he became unconscious and remained under treatment for a long period at various hospitals. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended th