GURMAIL SINGH Vs. JAGJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim petition filed for compensation for injury suffered in motor accident. The claimant's case was that he was travelling in a cycle and the accident had taken place near village Bhedpura when a bus belonging to the 2nd respondent coming from behind and driven rashly and negligently dashed against him that resulted in serious injuries. He had been admitted in the hospital from 23.02.1997 and operations had been conducted and he was discharged from hospital on 19.04.1997. He was again admitted for another operation and the claimant would claim that he had spent about Rs. 50,000/ - for his treatment. The claimant would contend that he had been earning Rs. 160/ - per day as Mason and on account of injury he was unable to do his work as a Mason. His urinary organ was also affected and passage of urine was made possible through a catheter placed for continued drainage. The treatment after the injury was not merely with reference to the external injuries but the prolonged treatment, including admission in Urology Department, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala on 01.09.1997. He was treated at various times taking admission and discharge in the hospital upto August, 1998. It was stated that he had to constantly change a urinary tube costing Rs. 16/ - per day. He had also to use ointment costing Rs. 26/ - which lasted only for few days and he would state that he should be paid the entire cost of expenses for his life long treatment for usage of these tubes. The respondent denied the accident and stated that his vehicle was not involved at all but when he was proceeding along with road while driving the bus, some of the passengers in the bus pointed out to a person lying on the road with injuries and at their compulsion, he stopped the bus to take the injured in the bus to the hospital. The vehicle itself was not involved but he had only taken up the injured to hospital only on humanitarian grounds. At the trial, the claimant gave evidence regarding the accident as the result of collision with the 2nd respondent bus and he also examined PW2 Kesar Singh as an eye witness to the accident. He was also incidentally the person who lodged the FIR on the same day on the basis of his statement. He would narrate the incident as having occurred at a time when he was sitting in front side of the bus by the driver side and he was a personal witness to the rash driving of the driver. In the cross - examination, he was confronted with the statement in the criminal case registered against the driver that he had not seen the accident and that further police had recorded his statement only on 23.02.1987 at about 12 noon and that the police did not see him later. There is a sure reference in the FIR about the involvement of the vehicle and the complaint has also been registered immediately after the accident. It was in evidence that the vehicle belonged to a Minister of the State of Punjab and that he being an influential person, he was able to prevail over the witnesses to run through a slipshod trial and make an evidence retracting from the statement which he has given to the police in the complaint and to give a statement taking a contrary stand at the criminal trial. There had been also some witnesses brought on the side of the respondent to say that they were travelling about the same time and they knew that the vehicle had stopped only to take up some person who was lying on the road already but there was really no collision with the bus.

(2.) I find the evidence to be very artificial and the finding regarding the non -involvement of the vehicle to be false. The complaint which was registered immediately after the accident clearly speaks about the involvement and it is artificial to contend that a person, who stopped the vehicle to help him reached the hospital had a case falsely registered against the 1st respondent. If there had been any delay on the part of the registration of a complaint, it could be assumed that a person who was trying to create a new evidence to make a claim for compensation but if the FIR had been registered immediately after the accident, it is against the norms of human conduct to turn treacherous against a saviour and cause a complaint to be registered. Even if this was possible for the complainant himself, there was no reason to a passenger in the vehicle to give such a complaint, for he could have no

(3.) PW -7 was a resident of the same village who gave evidence to the effect that the claimant was a Mason at Patiala and he claimed that he had also seen the accident involving the respondent's bus being a passenger in the bus. Yet another person PW8 also stated that he was a passenger in the bus and was known the involvement of the respondent's vehicle. His own evidence that he had travelled along with him to the hospital was not even suggested as false in the cross -examination. I find that the injury suffered by the claimant was serious and the Tribunal has left even without assessing the compensation.