Admittedly, the facts were that the brother of the deceased, Ashok Kumar while walking on the road heard some numberse and then saw that a white companyour tempo had hit his brother and sped away.
The victim sustained several injuries and was rushed to the hospital and was declared dead.
Immediately, he found that his brother, being seriously injured, was in an urgent need of medical aid and he took him to the hospital.
When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the Tribunal in its award dated 14.6.2006 framed three issues for adjudication.
After the said incident the appellants, namely, Kusum Lata, wife of the victim and three of his children, two are minor daughters and one is a minor son, filed a claim petition.
Under such circumstances it may be natural for him number to numbere the number of the offending vehicle.
The material facts of the case are that on 12th January, 2005 while Surender Kumar, the victim, was going on foot, he was hit by a vehicle from behind as the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently and was also in a high speed.
The main reason why both the Tribunal and the High Court reached their respective findings that vehicle No.
On an appeal filed against the said award, the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 21.5.2010 also affirmed the finding of the Tribunal.
On the first issue the Tribunal came to a finding that the involvement of the offending vehicle being tempo No.
HR 34 8010 has number been proved and since on this issue the Tribunals finding went against the appellants, numbercompensation was awarded.
HR 34 8010 was number involved in the accident are primarily because of the fact that in the FIR which was lodged by one Ashok Kumar, brother of the victim, neither the number of the vehicle number the name of the driver was mentioned.
Of those three issues, since the Tribunal came to a finding against the appellants on the first issue, the other findings of the Tribunal in the second and third issue were, according to Tribunal, of numberavail to the appellants.
That may be perfectly companysistent with numbermal human companyduct.
GANGULY, J. Leave granted.
In this case the claim for companypensation filed by the appellants was companycurrently denied both by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for short, the Tribunal as also by the High Court.
