RADHEY SHYAM Vs. PREM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claim for compensation for injuries suffered in an accident was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not proved that the injuries were on account of an accident involving a motor vehicle. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before this Court.

(2.) THE essential ground on which the Tribunal dismissed the petition was that the petitioner had not given any complaint to the Police and there is no acceptable evidence that there was a nexus between the injuries and the motor accident. The petitioner had a cogent case to narrate in his oral evidence :-

(3.) IT is no where suggested to the driver that the accident itself had not taken place. On the other hand, the specific suggestion is that the accident in question took place due to the sole negligence attributed to the driver. It is precisely on occasion like this where the owner shall bear vicarious liability and the Insurance Company will also become liable as an insurer. If the Tribunal had properly analyzed the case, it could not have dismissed the petition. It got carried away by the fact that since the accident had not been reported to the Police Station, the accident itself could not be true. Although an averment of collusion has made in the written statement of the insurer, it was not so suggested at the time of trial and especially at the time when the driver had been examined. I have already pointed out that the petitioner had a strong reason why he did not give a complaint to the Police namely that he was Loadmen in the vehicle and he believed that the owner would pay all his medical expenses. Under the circumstances I accept the evidence as credible and worthy of acceptance. I accordingly find that the accident arose only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver in starting the vehicle even before the Loadmen had got into the cabin and the petitioner is entitled to make the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.