LALIT CHOUHAN Vs. SHAKEEL MOHD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 25-7-2005 whereby Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (ADJ (FT) No. 7, Jaipur City rejected claim petition (MAC) No. 219/2004.

(2.) As alleged in claim petition, claimant met with an accident on 12-5-2002 while travellingin offending Jeep No. RJ-14-P-8815 along with his own brother besides seven other known persons from Bagru to Kekri and as a result of offending jeep being driven rashly and negligently by its driver it overturned and claimant alone sustained injuries. As per report, Medical Board opined 7% permanent disability to the claimant. FIR, for the accident (supra) was lodged by his brother on 21-5-2002 and all other members including his own brother sustained simple injuries for which they took medical first aid and discharged from the hospital. No reasons or explanation has come forward by the claimant for having lodged belated FIR after almost 10 days of the accident. On medical inspection of the of fending jeep, it was found that parking light whereof and on the corner of front bumper there were certain scratches and nothing more was found in course of mechanical inspection of the offending jeep. After taking note of totality of facts, learned Tribunal recorded finding that no cogent evidence has come on record which may connect injuries found on the person of claimant with the offending jeep and consequently, rejected claim petition, itself vide order impugned.

(3.) Counsel for the claimant submits that claimant injured sustained injuries and as per the report, the Medical Board opined 7% permanent disability and even after taking medical aid at Kekri he had gone to Mumbai for treatment and only because of the fact that he remained hospitalised in his treatment, First Information Report was lodged after a delay of only 10 days by his brother who was also travelling with him in offending jeep. Counsel submits that there was sufficient evidence made available on record to connect the accident having occurred with offending jeep but learned Tribunal committed error in not appreciating the same and the finding recorded in this regard while rejecting claim petition itself, is perverse and requires interference.