Mere allegat ions wit hout corroborat ive vs Prem lat a Shukla & ot hers, report ed in

Mr. Tej as Agarrwal, Advocat e for t he appellant . Mr. Mahavir Kohli, Advocat e respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. Kant i Ram Sharm a, Advocat e for respondent no.3. This Appeal from Order has been 2. filed by t he appellant challenging t he j udgm ent and order dat ed 08.11.2023 passed by t he learned Mot or Accident Claim s Tribunal/ Addit ional Dist rict Judge, Kot dwar, Dist rict Pauri Garhwal M.A.C.P. No.57 of 2019, whereby t he t he claim learned Tribunal dism issed pet it ion filed by t he appellant seeking compensation of ₹31,00,000/- for t he inj uries allegedly sust ained by him in a road accident dat ed 20.11.2017 along wit h int erest at t he rat e of 18% per annum . t o t he appellant , on 3. According 20.11.2017, he was t ravelling as a pillion rider on m ot orcycle No. UK- 07- AD- 3355 and was en rout e t o his work at Deepak Wedding Point , Kot dwar. I t was alleged t hat near BEL Road, Village Rat anpur, Kot dwar, Truck No. UP- 20- AT- 0227, being driven rashly and negligent ly, dashed int o t he m ot orcycle, as a result of which t he appellant sust ained grievous inj uries. The appellant , who was working as a cook earning ₹15,000/- per m ont h, t hat he suffered perm anent claim ed disabilit y t o t he ext ent of 40% , t hereby ent it ling him t o com pensat ion. t hough t he said t hat t he 4. Aft er exchange of pleadings, learned Tribunal, on appreciat ion of t he evidence, found t hat t he appellant had failed t o prove t hat t he alleged accident t ruck. The was caused by Tribunal observed t he appellant had m ent ioned Truck No. UP- 20- AT- 0227 as t he offending vehicle, t he I nvest igat ing Officer, aft er a det ailed invest igat ion, found t hat t he said t ruck was not incident and subm it t ed a closure report . The appellant did not file any prot est pet it ion or m ove for rej ect ion of t he closure report before t he com pet ent crim inal court . involved in t he t hat t hat t he said t he Tribunal erred Learned counsel for t he appellant 5. cont ended t ruck was not holding involved in t he accident , cont ending t hat t he driver of t he t ruck had adm it t ed t hat he was driving t he vehicle on t he dat e and at t he place in quest ion. I t is furt her t hat subm it t ed learned Tribunal t he disabilit y disbelieved wrongly cert ificat e issued by t he Medical Board wit hout t he m edical evidence on record. appreciat ing properly t he

6. Per cont ra, learned counsel for t he respondent s subm it t ed t hat t he findings of t he Tribunal were fully j ust ified. I t is argued t hat all docum ent s of t he vehicle were valid and in order and t hat t here was no evidence of rash or negligent driving. I t is furt her argued t hat once t he I nvest igat ing Officer, aft er invest igat ion, had subm it t ed a closure report finding t hat t he t ruck was not involved in t he accident , and t he claim ant had not challenged such report , t he said finding finalit y and could not be at t ained reopened before t he Tribunal. t hat t he t he 7. On careful exam inat ion of t he closure record, it is evident report subm it t ed by I nvest igat ing Officer concluded t hat Truck No. UP- 20- AT- 0227 was not involved in t he alleged accident . The appellant has not brought on record any m at erial t o discredit t he said finding. No prot est pet it ion was ever filed by t he Magist rat e against t he accept ance of t he closure report . I n t he absence of such a challenge, t he Tribunal was j ust ified in holding t hat t he appellant failed t o prove t he involvem ent of t he said t ruck in t he accident . t he appellant before I t is a set t led principle t hat t he 8. burden of proof in a claim pet it ion under t he Mot or Vehicles Act lies squarely upon t he claim ant t he accident t ook place due t o t he rash and negligent driving of t he offending vehicle. Mere allegat ions wit hout corroborat ive evidence cannot fast en liabilit y on t he owner or insurer. t o est ablish t hat

9. Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of Orient al I nsurance Com pany Lt d. Vs. Prem lat a Shukla & ot hers, report ed in ( 2007) 13 SCC 476, has cat egorically held t hat where t he claim ant fails t o est ablish t he offending vehicle or negligence on t he part of it s driver, t he Tribunal has no opt ion but t o dism iss t he claim pet it ion. involvem ent t he I n t he present case, t he appellant 10. has failed t o discharge his burden of proving t he involvem ent of t he alleged offending vehicle or t he negligent act of it s driver. Furt herm ore, t he disabilit y cert ificat e was right ly disbelieved by t he Tribunal, as law and no m edical accordance wit h it was not proved expert was exam ined t o subst ant iat e t he nat ure and ext ent of disabilit y. t he I n view of t he foregoing discussion, 11. t his Court finds no perversit y or illegalit y dat ed 08.11.2023 passed by t he learned Mot or Accident Claim s Tribunal, Kot dwar, Dist rict Pauri Garhwal. im pugned j udgm ent

12. The appeal is devoid of m erit s and is accordingly dism issed. ( A l o k M a h r a , J.)

11.12.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3 a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109 CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL