MANOJ Vs. SAMUNDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per claim appellant had been travelling in jeep No. MP 13-C 1890 on 18.6.1997 between Dewas and Borsali. Due to the negligent driving by Samundar Singh, respondent No. 1, the jeep had overturned and the appellant had sustained injuries and was taken to Shajapur Government Hospital and from there to Dewas Hospital where he had remained admitted between 19.6.1997 and 8.7.1997. He was admitted once again to Dewas Hospital on 20.10.1997 and 1.12.1997 and continued in hospital till 8.2.1998. He reported the matter to police on 23.6.1998 vide Exh. P-1 and thus, an offence under sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by police against him and after due investigation a criminal case was filed against Samundar Singh, the respondent No. 1. Samundar Singh was arrested on 26.9.1998 vide Exh. P-8. MLC report Exh. P-4 dated 13.6.1998 noted healing ulcers on right thigh with bony tenderness. Report Exh. P-9 has shown old fracture with callus formation in the right thigh. The claim was filed on 3.11.1998.

(2.) Samundar Singh, respondent No. 1 and his father Pirulal, respondent No. 2 in their written statement denied the accident and claimed that the appellant had gone with Mansingh and Hatesingh in some marriage, they had consumed liquor and quarrelled among themselves and the appellant was injured in such quarrel. It was claimed that the appellant had not travelled in the offending jeep on 18.6.1997. Thus, the claim was denied totally. Insurance company, respondent No. 3, also denied the accident and negligence of Samundar Singh, the respondent No. 1. According to him the claim was inflated and Samundar Singh, respondent No. 1 had no valid driving licence to drive the jeep.

(3.) After recording of evidence the Tribunal disbelieved Manoj Malviya, AW 1 and Mansingh, AW 3 and relying upon the statement of Samundar Singh, DW 1 held the claim not proved. Main ground taken had been that the matter was not reported to police immediately and F.I.R. was not lodged by the appellant for a year. Thus, the claim was dismissed.