ANIL Vs. KALURAM BAIRWA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dt.25/06/2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) in MAC Case No.110/2005 (712/2003) by which the claim filed by the claimant-appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts noticed are that the claimant-appellant, who was a student aged about 15 years, on 23/02/2003 at about 8.00 AM in the morning when he was going with his friend Naveen in a vehicle (Hero Puch Moped) and was crossing Malviya Nagar Bye-pass, Balaji Mode, at that time, a Tractor bearing No.RJ-14-1-R-1173, which was being driven by its driver in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit Hero Puch Moped due to which the claimant-appellant is said to have got fracture in his leg and consequent thereto, the injury being severe, his leg had to be amputated. He also received certain other injuries. An FIR to this effect came to be lodged on 27/02/2003. The claim was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.47,12,000/-. The Tribunal, after analyzing the material and evidence on record, disbelieved the version of the claimant-appellant and rejected the claim by the impugned order.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant contended that the accident did occur on account of rash and negligent driving of Tractor by its driver Kalu Ram Bairwa. He further contended that the evidence, which has come on record, clearly proves that on account of the accident, the appellant got injured and at a tender age of 15 years, his leg had to be amputated and his entire life has come to a standstill and being a student, he has not only suffered his education but would also suffer on account of this disability for entire life, he claimed that he was a bright student. He further contended that though there is delay in lodging of FIR No.70/2003 at Police Station Malviya Nagar on 27/02/2003 by 4 days but the delay was substantially explained and even owner of the vehicle has accepted under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act the contention of the appellant that the accident did happen on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by Kalu Ram Bairwa. He further contended that the appellant had to be immediately rushed to SMS Hospital, Jaipur on 23/02/2003 itself. However, since the doctor opined that there is no alternate except to amputate his leg, therefore, his family members took him to another hospital namely; Rungta Hospital where he was admitted from 25/02/2003 to 10/03/2003. Even in the Rungta Hospital, the doctors opined about amputation of his leg and finding no alternate except to get the leg amputated, the family members had no option and got the appellant treated in Rungta Hospital, as again shifting back to SMS Hospital, his position would have worsened. He further contended that the Tribunal has disbelieved the version of the appellant on assumption and presumption and merely on surmises and conjectures and has not looked into the facts appropriately and the order of the Tribunal is perverse. He further contended that admittedly the leg had to be amputated and such technicalities in a case like this need not come in the way of a genuine claim to be disbelieved by the Tribunal. He further contended that all injuries prove that the appellant got injured on account of the accident and there is no iota of evidence to disbelieve the said version. He further contended that claim on merits deserves to be allowed as claimed by the claimant as the same is just and proper. He relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Satbir Singh and others, 2013 14 SCC 345 and Gurdeep Singh Vs. Bhim Singh and others, 2013 11 SCC 507.