DEEPAK Vs. HATIM ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the case are that on the fateful day on 1.7.2000, at about 12 p.m. appellant Deepak was going from Jalebi Chowk to Sangali in Khandwa, when non-applicant No. 1 Hatim Ali came from the opposite direction on scooter bearing Registration No. M.P. 12-A-2402 rashly and negligently, and dashed against the claimant and since he was carrying aluminum rod on the scooter injured the claimant in the right eye, as a result of which he received serious injuries and had to be admitted in the Indore Hospital and Research Foundation Indore and thereafter referred to treatment to Eye Hospital Ahmedabad. The claimant lost complete vision of his right eye and claimed that Rs. 35,000/- was spent on treatment and further amount would be required for the treatment and under the various heads claimed total compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- before the Tribunal. Non-applicant to. 1 Hatim Ali filed written statement claiming that he had purchased the scooter bearing Registration No. M.R 12-A-2402 from Islamuddin non-applicant No. 2 and the transfer had not been registered and he had no knowledge of the accident and was falsely implicated by the police on a false report filed by the claimant. Non-applicant No. 2 Islamuddin filed statement claiming that on 1.4.2000 he had already sold the Scooter to Hatim Ali and denied the claim of the appellant. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to a finding that the claimant was unable to prove that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of scooter bearing Registration No. M.P. 12-A-2402. The Tribunal also held that non-applicant No. 2 was not liable for the accident. However, on the basis of the registration not having been transferred under section 51-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal held non-applicant No. 1 to be the owner and driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel and on scrutinizing the impugned order and the material on record, I find that the Tribunal has erred in not considering that Criminal Case No. 843/2000 which was registered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Khandwa and the involvement of non-applicant No. 1 Hatim Ali was not denied and merely because the matter was pending before the Criminal Court, there was no reason to give an adverse finding regarding the accident as not having taken place at the hands of non-applicant No. 1. So also although there was delay of 20 days in filing the First Information Report it should not have been discarded since there was perfect reason for the delay in filing the First Information Report. Moreover, the Tribunal has not relied on the testimony of (PW-2) Purshottam Tirthani, the sole eye witness to the accident, merely on the basis that the witness had failed to state how aluminum rod held by the child who was sitting on the pillion seat had entered into eye of claimant Deepak.

(2.) ON considering the record, it is also evident that claimant Deepak undertook treatment at Indore Hospital and Research Foundation Indore Centre and the discharge card Ex. P-6 states that the applicant was hospitalized from 1.7.2000 to 5.7.2000. That minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the First Information report when the victim himself has filed after a period of 20 days after his hospitalization and it was wrong on the part of the learned Judge of the Tribunal to have discarded his testimony merely on such minor discrepancy. The certificate of loss of vision has also been discarded only on the ground that it does not state how the injury had occurred. When in para 16, the Tribunal has held that the certificate Ex. P-25 issued by Specialist Dr. Subhash Jain and the discharge ticket Ex. P-6 and the evidence by the expert amply prove that the right eye of the appellant was totally damaged and there was total loss of vision.