LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-774

SATPAL Vs. SOM NATH @ SOMI

Decided On February 24, 2015
SATPAL Appellant
V/S
Som Nath @ Somi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dissatisfied with award dated February 02, 2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, "Tribunal") in MACT No. 124 of 2003 preferred by appellant-claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act' only) seeking compensation on account of injuries allegedly sustained by him in a vehicular accident was dismissed by holding that appellant-claimant has failed to establish that he sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck by respondent No.1.

(2.) While assailing findings recorded by ld. Tribunal especially on issue No.1 and consequent dismissal of petition vide impugned award, it has been argued with vehemence by learned counsel for appellant, Mr. Rohan Sharma that same are absolutely against the settled cannons of law. Mis-appreciation of evidence brought on record by appellant has resulted into miscarriage of justice. In fact, it is abundantly clear from oral as well as documentary evidence available on record that appellant was working as a Helper on truck No. HR-46-4098 on November 16, 2001. The said truck loaded with cement was going from Narnaul. When it reached near railway godown, appellant after checking tyres tried to board and move in the said truck but respondent No. 1 started and accelerated it at a high speed, due to which, he fell down on pucca portion of road and his right foot was crushed under the tyre of truck. A case bearing FIR No. 84, dated March 24, 2003 was registered against respondent No.1, copy of which is exhibited P-3 but testimony of appellant-claimant, contents of FIR and medical certificate have been ignored and disbelieved by ld. Tribunal erroneously simply on the ground that appellant has failed to explain the delay in registration of FIR. Even otherwise, FIR is not sine quo non for seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Act and evidence brought on record before ld. Tribunal is required to be taken into consideration to determine rashness and negligence on the part of offending vehicle and to access compensation. The finding recorded by ld. Tribunal on issue No.1 are not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be reversed and delivered in favour of appellant. Consequently, appellant is entitled to reasonable compensation.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3- insurance company, Mr. Harsh Aggarwal while supporting award, has submitted that it does not require any interference by this Court being bereft of any infirmity or illegality. The same is absolutely in consonance with evidence available on file. In fact, there is no cogent and convincing evidence to establish that he sustained injuries on a relevant date involving truck in question. Hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.