The claimant must prove the occurrence of the accident and the negligence of the driver to succeed in a compensation claim, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Sukhvinder Kaur, J.

This appeal (FAO-2742-2001) has been filed by the appellant/claimant for setting aside of the award dated 30.11.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, vide which the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant was dismissed.

2. The relevant facts as per case of the claimant are that on 14.12.1997, claimant - Charanjit Singh was travelling in a truck bearing registration No.PCI-4789 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 and caused the accident near village Mansurpur on Khatauli Road, about 10 K.M. from Muzzafar Nagar. Claimant/injured was taken to hospital at Muzzafar Nagar where his left leg was plastered and he remained admitted there for 3 days. On 17.12.1997, he was brought to Ambala City and was admitted at Mann Orthopedic Hospital, where he remained under treatment upto 10.01.1998. As the claimant remained on bed, so the accident was not reported to the police. The claimant was 30 years old at the time of the accident and had been kept as helper/cleaner by respondent No.2 on the truck in question and he was earning Rs. 3000/- per month. The claimant had spent about Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- on his treatment, medicines, transportation, special diet etc. He suffered great physical and mental pain due to the injuries caused in the accident.

3. Respondent No.1 driver of the tanker bearing registration No.PCI-4789, respondent No.2 - owner and respondent No.3/Insurance Company of the said oil tanker were impleaded as respondents in the claim petition. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement by raising preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the claim petition. On merits, it was pleaded that no accident of truck bearing No.PCI-4789 had taken place on 14.12.1997 at village Mansurpur on Khatauli Road as alleged; that the claimant had not been employed by respondent No.2 as a cleaner/helper, so question of the alleged accident did not arise; that the petition was false and is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that the claim petition has been filed by the claimant on false and frivolous grounds just to get compensation; factum of accident, injuries sustained and money spent on accident was also denied and dismissal of the claim petition was prayed for.

4. Separate written statement was filed by respondent No.3/Insurance Company by taking preliminary objections that the claim petition was not maintainable as no accident had taken place as alleged in the claim petition. If any accident was proved on record, then the claimant was travelling in oil tanker bearing No.PCI-4789 on payment of charges as gratuitous passenger in violation of the law, terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Claim was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and was filed on false and frivolous grounds in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2 in order to get money from respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective license at the time of the accident and he was driving the truck in question in contravention to the policy of the insurance company. On merits, age and income of the claimant, accident, injuries sustained and money spent on the treatment were denied and dismissal of the claim petition was prayed for.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Both the parties were given ample opportunities to adduce their evidence to discharge the onus behind the issued placed upon them.

6. After considering the evidence available on record and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition vide the impugned award dated 30.11.2000.

7. Feeling dissatisfied with the award dated 30.11.2022, the appellant/claimant has preferred the instant appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant record.

9. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant has contended that while