NANHU SINGH Vs. JAHEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal preferred under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'), claimant has called in question the legal acceptability of the award dated 12.8.1999 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Maihar, District Satna in Claim Case No. 7 of 1995 whereby the Claims Tribunal has absolved the insurance company and fastened the liability of payment of compensation on the owner, solely on the ground that, the person who lodged the F.I.R. before the investigation agency, PW 2, had stated that the petitioner claimant was travelling in a truck bearing registration No. UP 32-A 6597 and whereas in his statement in court, he has stated that he was standing on the roadside, where the truck hit him. As there was a discrepancy in the statement, claimant can be treated as a passenger and, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation from the insurance company.

(2.) It is not disputed before this court that the accident had occurred; that the claimant has sustained injury; and that the claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000 towards the compensation keeping in view the 45 per cent permanent disability and that the owner has been made liable to pay the compensation, the core question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal while dealing with issue No. 6 (b), namely, whether there has been breach of policy has returned the finding correctly. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to para 5 of the award passed by the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has laid emphasis on the factum that there was discrepancy in the statement made by PW 2 in the court and the F.I.R. and the F.I.R. being initial report should be given credence. Being of this view, the Tribunal had arrived at the conclusion that the claimant was travelling as a passenger in the truck and hence, he was not covered by the insurance policy.

(3.) Mr. Anil Lala, learned counsel has submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred by placing reliance on the F.I.R. In the said F.I.R., it was categorically stated that the claimant was standing on the roadside when the truck travelled from that place and injured him. That apart, submission of Mr. Lala is that PW 2 remained unshaken and that the accident had taken place when the claimant was standing on the roadside.