IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. JAKIR HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for condoning the delay of 50 days in preferring this appeal. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and the delay 50 days that has occurred in filing this appeal is hereby condoned. The application stands disposed of.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing of the appellant has submitted that that infact the alleged offending truck was not found at the spot by the police and the statement of the injured person was also not taken for the reason that he was unfit to make his statement as per the report of the doctor. His statement, however, was taken on 17/8/2016, but FIR was registered on 20/7/2016 against unknown vehicle and unknown driver. However, after the statement of injured-respondent No. 1 it appears that the owner of the offending truck surrendered the vehicle. Thus, it is contended that, since there is no eyewitness in this case, it was not a fit case in which, on the basis of sole statement of the claimant, the claim petition could have been allowed. It is also contended that the surrender of the offending truck by the owner raises suspicion as to why he on his own would surrender the vehicle. It may also indicate towards some sort of connivance between the claimant and the owner of the truck.

(3.) The reason why the offending vehicle was not recovered from the place of occurrence stands answered by the appellant itself as it is submitted at the time of hearing of the case that the offending vehicle escaped from the scene. So far the statement of only one person is concerned, it is well settled that the Tribunal, while considering the claim petition, is not required to put such a strict proof upon the claimant with respect to the accident or the manner of the accident, which is required for proving the case of the prosecution in a criminal trial. If other eyewitness is not available and the victim is available and he has given his statement, no wrong had been committed by the Tribunal by accepting such statement, more so ever when he must have been put to the test of cross-examination also. It is not stated that at the time of cross-examination he has been given some contradictory statement.