RASHID KHAN Vs. TAYYUB KHAN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Civil Misc. Appeal u/Sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the Claimant-appellant assailing the judgment dt.03/11/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) The relevant facts, necessary for disposal of the instant appeal, are that on 14/04/2011 at about 3.00 pm, while the appellant returning to his house from bus stand, Dausa and when he reached near old Cinema, Lalsot Road, all of sudden a Tempo bearing No.RJ-29-PA-0018, which was being driven by his driver in rash and negligent manner, hit the appellant resulting in sustaining serious injuries to the appellant. It is stated that the appellant was aged about 45 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and on account of the said accident, he incurred substantial expenses on medical treatment etc. and had to remain admitted in hospital. A claim of Rs.10,52,500/- was filed by him before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, after analyzing the material on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant was unable to prove even involvement of Tempo bearing No.RJ-29-PA-0018 and even the FIR was lodged after about 41 days and no reasonable cause was shown for lodging the FIR after a considerable delay and accordingly rejected the claim vide order impugned.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant contended that merely because there was delay in lodging FIR, the claim of the appellant could not have been rejected and in support of this submission, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & ors. (Civil Appeal No.1926/2011) decided on 18/02/2011 where delay of even three months was ignored. He further contended that ample evidence has been led that on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle, the appellant sustained serious injuries which is also proved from the discharge certificate and it has also been proved that the appellant was admitted in hospital for several days and incurred substantial amount in treatment. He further contended that the Tribunal has not considered the matter in correct manner and has ignored the material evidence namely; statements of the witnesses, notice u/Sec. 133 and other factors. He contended that the claim deserves to be allowed.