****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. The appellant-claimant is aggrieved by the award dated 01.12.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant- claimant under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained in an accident dated 07.04.1993, was dismissed. The appellant-claimant has challenged the dismissal of his claim petition on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred by not properly appreciating the evidence regarding the manner of occurrence of the accident.

2. The case of the appellant-claimant, as set out in the claim petition, is that on 07.04.1993, while he was proceeding from Samalkha towards village Khozkipur and had reached village Atta, a tractor bearing registration No. HRS-7556 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle) came and struck against him. As a result of the accident, the left leg of the appellant-claimant was crushed under the wheel of the said tractor. It was asserted that the tractor was being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. That on the basis of his statement (contents of which were denied by appellant), entries were made in the daily diary register at Police Station, Samalkha, but no FIR was registered by the police. The appellant-claimant alleged that his thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers and a false report was prepared by taking advantage of his illiteracy. Subsequently, the appellant-claimant filed a complaint against respondent No. 1 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. The appellant-claimant thus asserted that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 while driving the offending vehicle.

3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in their written statement, apart from raising preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the claim petition, denied the accident and the injuries alleged, as well as the involvement of respondent No. 1 and the offending vehicle. The accident was denied in toto. Respondent No. 3 also denied the accident and took an additional plea that respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving license at the relevant time.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Virender respondent No.1, while driving the tractor bearing registration No. HRS-7556 during the course of employment of respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3? OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of Compensation, petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present claim petition? OPR.

4. Whether respondent No.1 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident?

5. Relief.

5. The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, decided Issue No. 1 against the appellant- claimant and concluded that the involvement of offending vehicle is not proved and it was not at fault in causing the accident.

6. In the present case, it is an admitted position that after the accident dated 07.04.1993, the appellant-claimant was initially taken to Civil Hospital, Samalkha, and thereafter shifted to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, where his statement was recorded by the police on 08.04.1993. On the basis of the said statement, DDR/Report No. 13 dated 09.04.1993 was recorded.

7. Perusal of the statement dated 08.04.1993 made by the appellant-claimant before the police shows that therein he had stated that while he was going to village Khozkipur, the tempo he was travelling in broke down near the village, and he, along with Tara, son of Chander Bhan, started walking on the road. In the meantime, a tractor came from the side of village Atta, and its front wheel came off, as a result of which the tractor suddenly veered towards them and had hit his left leg and crushe