BALWAN SINGH Vs. SUNIL ALIAS SONU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 30.05.2001, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal') vide which the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the 'Act') for grant of compensation has been dismissed on the ground that the claimant has not been able to establish that he has sustained the injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor in question by the respondent.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant has himself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and has fully supported the mode of accident mentioned in the claim petition. Even a criminal case was registered against the respondent for causing this accident on the statement of the claimant bearing FIR No.247 dated 27.08.2009 under Section 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sector 10, Gurgaon. He contended that from the statement of the claimant corroborated from the copy of the FIR Ex.P44, it is established that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trolly by respondent Sunil. He contended that the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition simply on the ground that there was delay in lodging the FIR. The said delay is satisfactorily explained in the FIR itself as both the parties belong to the same village and efforts were being made for compromise.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that it is a case of false implication due to rivalry in the village. Respondent Sunil has stepped into the witness box as RW2 and has totally repelled the version of the claimant. It was alleged by the claimant that the accident has taken place in front of house of Ganpat. The respondent has examined Devi Lal son of said Ganpat as RW1. He has categorically stated that no such accident has taken place in front of their house. He contended that there is no satisfactory explanation for delay of more than one month in lodging the FIR. He further contended that mere registration of the FIR is no ground to establish the negligence and involvement of respondent. Thus, he contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition.