****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the award dated 11.04.2009 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonipat (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant was dismissed.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner Ram Kanwar had boarded an Eicher make tractor trailer at the Khubru Adda an route to village Majri, Tehsil Ganaur, district Sonipat on the late evening of June 30, 2006. The tractor-trailer arrived in the vicinity of Village Sheikhpura turning at about 10:45 p.m. where the rear side of the trailer was hit by a Tata Spacio make vehicle No.HR-56-3246. bearing registration The driver of the tractor swerved his vehicle towards the kucha berm of the road but the driver of the offending vehicle trespassed into the wrong lane and caused the accident. The petitioner was immediately shifted to Mool Chand Hospital, Ganaur for instant medical aid where MLR No.S/11/06 dated 1.7.2006 was prepared by the doctor in attendance. The matter was reported to the police and case bearing FIR No.184 dated 1.7.2006 was registered at Police Station, Ganaur for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner claims to have received treatment at Mool Chand Hospital, Ganaur as also at some other hospitals on total cost of Rs.50,000/- only. He was barely forty four years of age on the day of the accident. He is a farmer labourer by profession who was earning a sum of Rs.5600/- per month on the day of the mishap. He has sought a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs as compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in the mishap.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents therein appeared and contested the claim petition by filing separate written statement denying the factum of accident/compensation.

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

“1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-56-3246 by respondent No.1? OPP

2. If Issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative what compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3.

4. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR-3

5. Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the appellant. Hence the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6. Learned counsel for the appellant–claimant contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant on the erroneous premise that the claim petition was instituted in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2 (driver and owner of the offending vehicle) just to grab compensation from respondent No.3-Insurance Company. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be awarded as per settled law.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company contends that the learned Tribunal after appreciating the fact, has rightly dismissed the claim petition of the claimant-appellant. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

9. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of the award, which reads as under:-

“ISSUE NO.1

It is the case of the petitioner that te wee Sraveling innerle tractor troller on the evening of June 30, 2006 which was hit by a T t Specie nata vehicle bearing ạ registration No.-56- 3246. The accident was the direct result of rash driving on the part of repondent Baraj, the driver of the Tata S