RAJENDRASINGH Vs. SHEETALDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is claimant's appeal who suffered fracture of femur bone of the thigh and was confined to hospital for 30 days. His claim being rejected he has appealed challenging findings of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, for short 'the M. A. C. T. ', on two grounds. Admittedly, the accident took place on 6. 7. 1977 at 6. 00 p. m. and claim petition was lodged on 2. 5. 1983. Mr. V. K. Sharma, counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, has contended, in support of the award, that there was no application for condonation of delay and real facts were suppressed by the claimant-appellant about his age. However, the second question to be decided is, whether the claimant-appellant did prove that he had suffered injury in the course of accident in which Tempo No. MPH 5350 was involved. Indeed, it is not denied that, that vehicle was insured during the relevant period with the contesting respondent. In the court below two separate written statements were filed. Those were by the driver and insurer.

(2.) MR. N. M. Haswani, counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the driver having taken upon himself the burden to prove the case set up by him he had to have established his plea that it was a case of the claimant suffering injury not as a result of any accident caused by the vehicle, but due to his fall from the bicycle which did slide into a ditch. On the other hand, he did not enter into the witness-box and did not adduce any evidence otherwise also in support of his case. It is a fact that only claimant adduced evidence and examined himself and no witness has been examined on behalf of any of the defendants.

(3.) IN so far as the question of limitation is concerned there is certainly some doubt about appellant's age when the accident took place.