VINOD KUMAR Vs. MOHAMMAD HAFIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the award dated 3-3-2005 passed by XVII MACT, Indore in claim case No. 22/03 whereby claim case filed by the appellant for compensation on account of injuries sustained in a motor accident was dismissed, present appeal has been filed. Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim case before the learned tribunal alleging that on 4-6-2001 when the appellant was going on his motor-bike along with pillion rider Omprakash Mangal. It was alleged that when the appellant was near village-Machal, at that time respondent No. 2 who was driving the offending loading rickshaw bearing Registration No. M.P.-09/K/3519 rashly and negligently which was owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3 dashed the appellant with the result appellant sustained injuries in his right leg. It was prayed that claim case be allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim case was contested by the respondent No. 3 wherein all the allegations made in the claim case were denied. It was prayed that claim case filed by the appellant be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned tribunal dismissed the claim case against which the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned award passed by the learned tribunal is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set-aside. It is submitted that appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident which took place on 4-6-2001 and appellant was brought to Gokuldas Hospital, Indore and remained hospitalized upto 12-6-2001. It is submitted that in the record of Hospital it is mentioned that appellant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. It is submitted that FIR was lodged on 9-6-2001. It is submitted that since the appellant was hospitalized, therefore, it was not excepted from the appellant to lodge the FIR on the date of accident. It is submitted that learned tribunal committed error in dismissing the claim case filed by the appellant on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. It is submitted that appellant has spent a huge amount in his treatment. It is submitted that the ground which was taken by the learned tribunal in dismissing the claim case filed by the appellant was that the offending vehicle was not identified. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Mannulal vs. Surendra Pal Singh, 2001 1 MPLJ 423 wherein the question of identification of vehicle was involved and the vehicle was identified by the claimant's witness at the police station, this Court held that since truck was seized and police arrested the driver and truck was seen by bystanders but registration number could not be noted since it was going at a fast speed, the findings of learned tribunal were reversed holding that truck was involved in the accident and its driver was rash and negligent. Learned counsel further placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan, 2011 3 MPLJ 255 wherein there was delay in lodging the FIR Hon'ble Apex Court held that cause of injury mentioned in injury report prepared by the doctor is road accident, therefore, even if FIR was lodged after 3 months of the accident and the delay is explained the claim case cannot be dismissed. On the strength of aforesaid position of law learned counsel submits that appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the impugned award passed by learned tribunal be set-aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that pillion rider Omprakash Mangal was not examined. It is submitted that Deepak Mangal son of pillion rider who lodged the FIR after 5 days was also not examined. It is submitted that FIR was lodged on 9-6-2001 and offending vehicle was seized on 26-7-2001 and after completing all the formalities challan was filed on that very day by the police and order of conviction was also passed on that very day which shows that there was collusion between appellant, respondent No. 1 and police authorities. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Karamchand Yogi vs. Kishansingh, MA No. 1034/2005 decided on 13-7-2007 wherein Division Bench of this Court has assigned various reasons to disbelieve these types of false claim cases. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Madhu Thakur in MA No. 621/2007 decided on 5-11-2008. It is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned tribunal in dismissing the claim case filed by the appellant. It is submitted that there is no sufficient explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellant has no merits and the same be dismissed. From perusal of record, it is evident that in a motor accident appellant sustained injuries which took place on 4-6-2001 immediately thereafter appellant was hospitalized and in the discharge ticket wherein it is mentioned that appellant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. Record of criminal case was submitted by the appellant which shows that Deepak Mangal who has lodged the FIR. his name was mentioned in the list of witnesses and name of Omprakash Mangal who is father of Deepak Mangal was also mentioned in the list of witnesses. No efforts were made by the appellant to prove the accident. Appellant failed to prove that in what circumstance the accident took place. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that at what point of time appellant came to know that offending vehicle was involved in the accident as in the FIR which was lodged on 9-6-2001 no number of vehicle was mentioned except the colour. In the FIR it is nowhere mentioned that Ramesh was also eye-witness of the accident. Not only this there is delay in lodging the complaint as the accident took place on 4-6-2001 and complaint was lodged on 9-6-2001 but the fact remains that upto 9-6-2001 the complaint was not lodged by Omprakash who was none else but the pillion rider who sustained no injury. FIR was lodged by Deepak Mangal who was not present at the time of accident. Appellant has also not stated that how the offending vehicle was identified as in the FIR it is mentioned that the offending vehicle was of Blue Colour and there is nothing on record to show that the vehicle which was seized is of Blue Colour. In the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the learned tribunal in dismissing the claim case filed by the appellant. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellant has no merits and the same stands dismissed.