SAVITRI DEVI Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is challenging the award dated 16. 9. 2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal (Fast Track), Kotputli, District jaipur whereby the claim application filed by the appellant has been dismissed and direction has been issued to recover the amount of Rs. 25,000 along with 6 per cent interest within a period of two months from passing of the said award.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 27. 7. 2003 when the appellant and her brother, Ram Singh, were coming from her in-laws' house and going to her parental home at Devta by a motor cycle, suddenly near a turn of Mothuka Road, a jeep bearing registration No. RJ 32-C 0405, being driven by the respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, allegedly collided with the motor cycle. Consequently, the appellant had suffered various injuries on her person. She further claimed that her right hand was crushed. Subsequently, her right hand was even amputated by one Dr. Murari Lai. F. I. R. was lodged at the Police station, Patan, District Sikar regarding the alleged accident. In order to receive some compensation for the alleged accident, the appellant filed a claim petition before the tribunal. In the claim petition, appellant claimed that at the time of alleged accident, she was 22 years old and she was earning rs. 8,000 per month from her salary as she was working as Aangan Bari teacher and from the tailoring and weaving business. Therefore, she filed a claim petition for a compensation to the tune of Rs. 32,41,000. In order to substantiate her case, she examined three witnesses, i. e. , herself and her brothers and submitted 23 documents. On the other hand, the non-claimants did not examine any evidence, but did submit 2 documents. After going through the oral and the documentary evidence, the Claims tribunal was pleased to pass an award as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before us.

(3.) MR. Jai Kishan Yogi, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the claim petition has been dismissed ostensibly on the ground that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the F. I. R. by the claimant. According to him, however, the said delay has been explained by the claimant. Therefore, the reason given by the Tribunal is without any foundation. He has further pleaded that the injury report, Exh. 8; the report of the Medical Officer, Exh. 11; the discharge summary report, Exh. 12; the permanent disability certificate, Exh. 13 and Exhs. 14 to 22, the bills for the medicines bought by the claimant, all prove the fact that the claimant was victim in a motor vehicle accident. However, Claims tribunal has not properly appreciated the documentary evidence, which was readily available on the record.