SHRAVAN LAL Vs. PURANMAL & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Shravan Lal, is aggrieved by the award dated 2.7.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sambhar Lake (Jaipur) whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 20.7.2010 the appellant was going from his Village Rasulpura for working as a labourer. He was travelling from his village in a bus. When he got off from the bus, and was walking on the road, allegedly he was hit by a tempo bearing registration No. RJ 14 2G 1324. According to the appellant, the said tempo was driven in rash and in negligent manner. Consequently, he suffered grievous injuries. Subsequently, he filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to support his case, he examined himself as a witness and submitted twenty -five documents. Since the respondent did not file any reply, their evidence was eventually closed. After going through the oral and documentary evidence the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that there was a delay of fifteen days in lodging of the FIR by the claimant -appellant. Hence this appeal before this Court.

(2.) MR . Arvind Sharma, the learned counsel for appellant, has vehemently contended that since the family members were busy in looking after the medical needs of the injured -claimant, the FIR could not be lodged immediately. Moreover, the claimant, being a villager did not understand intricacies of the law. Therefore, the delay in lodging of the FIR cannot be said to be an inordinate one.

(3.) A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that according to the claimant -appellant himself, he was taken to the Bagru Hospital by the police itself. Thus he had ample time to inform the police about the fact that he met with a vehicular accident and to give other details of the accident to the police. Moreover, in his testimony he had claimed that he was kept in the Bagru Hospital only for a day and was discharged on the very same day as the date of the accident. He further claimed that subsequently he went for further treatment to Dr. Kayal and thereafter to the Manoj Fracture Hospital. Thus, according to him, he was busy looking after his medical needs. Hence he could not lodge the FIR. However, the learned Tribunal has noticed the fact that the appellant has not submitted any documentary evidence to establish the fact that he had gone for consulting Dr. Kayal, or that he was treated at the Manoj Fracture Hospital. Most importantly, the FIR was not lodged by the appellant, but was lodged by his brother, Rameshwar. Even Rameshwar has not been produced as a witness before the Tribunal. There is no evidence to show that Rameshwar was busy with the medical treatment of the claimant -appellant. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in concluding that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The delay in lodging the FIR creates a suspicion in the mind of the Court that perhaps the accident never took place, or even if it did, it did not take place with the offending vehicle alleged to be involved in the accident. Thus the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.