The significance of medical evidence and the principle that delay in lodging a complaint should not be the sole ground to dismiss a claim petition.

JUDGMENT

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. - The present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 14.06.2011 in MVC.No.6736/2008 passed by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 29.05.2008 at about 5.00 pm., after alighting from the Eicher HGV vehicle bearing No.Ka-21-a-1083 the appellant/claimant who was working as a cleaner-cum-loader/unloader, was giving signal to the driver of the said vehicle to reverse the same near the Eicher showroom, situating at Cottomnallur Cross, Bangalore-Kolar Road. But the driver recklessly and negligently in a high speed took the vehicle in a reverse direction, as a result, the appellant/claimant was crushed between the vehicle and electricity pole/transformer and suffered burnt injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to D.G. Hospital, Bangalore, where he was treated as an inpatient from 29.05.2008 to 15.07.2008. The claim petition was filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 166 of MV act before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. The said petition was dismissed by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred before this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submitted that dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal is on erroneous reasons and without properly appreciating the evidence on record. The appellant had sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident as he was giving signal to the driver of HGV truck bearing Reg.No.Ka-21-a-1083 and the driver of the truck had recklessly and negligently driven the truck. Therefore, the appellant was struck between the electric pole/transformer and the truck and sustained burnt injuries. Therefore, in this regard, the accident has occurred, but without appreciating this, only on hypothetical basis and on mere surmises and conjectures, the Tribunal imagining something else, that the accident has not happened, has wrongly dismissed the claim petition. Therefore, submitted to re-appreciate the evidence on record by holding that the injuries sustained by the appellant are due to the motor vehicle accident as HGV truck was involved.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company submitted that HGV truck bearing Reg.No.Ka-21-a-1083 was not involved in the accident and the Tribunal while giving reasons and while answering issue No.1 has elaborately considered the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, and has rightly come to the conclusion that the manner of accident as stated by the appellant is a doubtful one and involvement of HGV truck bearing Reg.No.Ka-21-a-1083 is not proved. Further submitted that the appellant might have sustained burnt injuries for various other reasons while he was traveling on the foot-board of the bus. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and correctly came to the conclusion that the accident has not occurred as it is stated by the appellant and the truck was not involved. Therefore, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition, which needs no interference. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

5. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that, even though, the accident was occurred on 29.05.2008, but the complaint was filed on 31.05.2008 that too by not mentioning the eye witnesses. Therefore, disbelieved the complaint. The Tribunal has not appreciated the charge sheet papers by holding that mere filing of charge sheet against the driver of the truck is not sufficient to prove the rash and negligent aspect. Therefore, dismissed the claim petition. Further the Tribunal had observed that upon appreciating the evidence on record, Exs.R.2 to R.8 photographs with negatives that factum of accident is not believable. The appellant being the cleaner-cum-loader/unloader stood exactly behind the vehicle and was giving signals resulting his seizure between the vehicle and the