GHANSHYAM MEENA Vs. BHUPENDRA SINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimant-appellant assailing the judgment and award dt.24/09/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Kota in MAC Case No.376/2007 by which the claim filed by the appellant has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts noticed are that it is alleged that on 02/10/2006 at about 3.30 PM the claimant-appellant was going from his office to his residence on Motorcycle Suzuki Victor bearing No.RJ-20-SA-8543 and when he reached at the Crossing near gate of I.L. Township, at that time, a loading Tempo bearing No.RJ-33-GA-0024, which was being driven in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner came from the back side and hit the Motorcycle consequent thereto the appellant fell down, his motorcycle got damaged and he suffered various grievous injuries on heel of right leg, right knee and left shoulder. It is stated that he was admitted in the hospital for some time and when he recovered, FIR was immediately lodged on 27/02/2007 but the Tribunal, taking into consideration the fact that the FIR was lodged almost after four months and other factors, rejected the claim vide order impugned, which is assailed herein.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the accident did happen on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle and from the material and evidence placed on record, it is proved that the accident did happen. He further contended that admittedly FIR was lodged late but that does not mean that the accident did not happen and filing of FIR late is not fatal in all the cases. He further contended that the site plan was prepared which also proved that the accident did happen. He further contended that the medical report also proves that the appellant suffered severe and grievous injuries on account of accident and was confined to bed for a sufficient long period and as soon as he recovered, he immediately lodged FIR and contended that the eye-witness also proved about the accident, he further contended vital issues have been ignored by the Tribunal.