The credibility of evidence and the timely reporting of accidents are crucial factors in determining the validity of claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “M.V.Act”) has been preferred against judgment and award dated 26-07-2008 and 27-01-2009 respectively passed by the Additional District Judge Ist –cum- Motor Vehicles Claim Tribunal, Bhojpur at Ara (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in Motor Vehicle Claim Case No. 37 of 2001. By the said judgment and award, the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim application filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the M.V.Act.

2. Short fact of the case is that the appellant had filed a claim case in the court of learned Tribunal, vide M.V. Case No. 37 of 2001 claiming therein a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lacs) for his permanent disablement and Rs. 1,61,265/- (one lac sixty one thousand two hundred sixty five) for the expenditure, which has been incurred against his treatment. The appellant had received injuries due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Maxi-407, bearing registration no. MKD-3007 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”). It was claimed that the appellant on 30-10-2000 was getting his vehicle repaired with the help of two mechanics on Ara-Sahpur road and he was standing on the road in the meanwhile, at about 8:15 P.M., the offending vehicle being driven rashly and negligently dashed the appellant. In the said accident, his left leg was badly injured and he was immediately carried to Referral Hospital, Sahpur. After being provided immediate first aid, he was referred to Sadar Hospital, Ara, from where, he was again on the same day referred to P.M.C.H., Patna. In the P.M.C.H., he got treatment up to 15-11-2000 and thereafter, he was got admitted in a private Nursing Home of Dr. Anil Kumar Verma, situated in Kankarbagh Colony, Patna. It has been stated that at the time of accident, driver of the appellant’s vehicle, namely; Sri Belas Sao was also present. Accident, as per the case of appellant, had occurred on 30-10-2000, however; on the basis of written application filed on behalf of Sri Belas Sao, an F.I.R., vide Sahpur P.S. Case No. 181 of 2000 was registered on 27-01-2001. Subsequently, on 07-09-2001, the claim case i.e. M. V. Claim Case No. 37 of 2001 was filed. To substantiate the case of the appellant, the appellant examined altogether nine witnesses. Besides oral evidences, the appellant also got number of documents exhibited, such as; medical reports and bills, including copy of F.I.R. i.e. Sahpur P.S. Case No. 181 of 2000. Before the Tribunal, the sole respondent appeared and filed written statement refuting the claim of the appellant. The learned Tribunal, after examining the evidences in detail, did not agree with the case of the claimant-appellant and dismissed the claim case i.e. M.V. Claim Case No. 37 of 2001 by its judgment and award dated 26-07-2008 and 27-01-2009 respectively, which has been assailed in the present appeal.

3. Sri Bhola Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that despite the fact that there were sufficient materials on record to allow the claim of the appellant, the learned Tribunal, without appreciating those evidences, has rejected the claim of the appellant. He submits that the accident was witnesses by the informant (Belas Sao), who was driver of the vehicle of the appellant, which at the time of accident, was being got repaired. He submits that Sri Belas Sao has been examined as PW-1. The PW-1, according to the appellant, has specifically given the number of offending vehicle i.e. Maxi, bearing registration no. MKD-3007. Besides this, the injured i.e. appellant has also specifically corroborated the case. It was argued that other witnesses have corroborated regarding the treatment of the appellant. In the case, number of medical reports as well as medical bills have been got exhibited to establish that due to untoward incident, which was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the appellant has become disab