KASHMIRI LAL Vs. JITU AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal stands directed against the award pronounced by the Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 11/2006, whereby, the relief of compensation was declined vis-a-vis the petitioner/claimant.

(2.) The petitioner/appellant herein, had, averred in the claim petition, of, his sustaining injuries on his person, in sequel to occurrence of a collision, inter se the motorcycle whereon he was atop, with, the tractor driven by respondent No. He also espoused in the claim petition, that the occurrence of a collision inter se the motorcycle, whereon he was atop vis-a-vis the tractor, driven by respondent No.2, being a sequel of rash and negligent driving of the tractor, by respondent No. Since, the learned Tribunal has declined relief to the petitioner, significantly, upon, its rendering disaffirmative findings upon the apposite issue appertaining to the aforesaid espousal, hence, it is to be determined, whether, the findings rendered upon apposite issue No.1, hence withstanding, the scrutiny of the evidence germane thereto.

(3.) The petitioner/appellant herein had vis-a-vis the alleged accident lodged a FIR, borne in Ex.PW3/A. The aforesaid FIR was lodged belatedly, since, the accident. Since therein, the petitioner/appellant herein assigns, the reason for the apposite collision, to, the rash and negligent manner of driving, of tractor by respondent No.2, hence, per se the belated lodging of the FIR, and, incriminatory ascriptions therein, against respondent No.2, (i) though, may spur an inference of concoction and per-meditation, whereupon, the relevant incriminatory ascriptions borne therein vis-a-vis respondent No.2, are, prima facie</i> vitiated, (ii) nonetheless, since Ex.PW3/A does not constitute a substantive piece of evidence, and, when in proof, of, apposite issue No.1, the petitioner was yet enabled to adduce ocular evidence, (iii) thereupon, if the apposite, ocular evidence, is credible, besides carries evidentiary vigour, hence, the effect, if any, of the belated lodging of the FIR, by, the petitioner/appellant herein vis-a-vis the relevant occurrence, would stand obviously blunted.