Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Since the appeal and the cross-objection relate to award dated 30.9.2009 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in Claim Case No. 1620/2007, they are being disposed by this common judgment.

2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

3. Facts in brief are that on 2.5.2007 at about 7 a.m. Vijay Kumar was going on his Hero Puch bearing No.RJ-14-32-M-4833 from his house to the High Court for duty. When he was nearing Ambedkar Circle after crossing Janpath, opposite LIC office then Santro Car bearing No. DL 3 C AB 4515 hit the claimant from back resulted in accident. The FIR bearing No. 115./2007 was lodged before the Police Station Jyoti Nagar Jaipur on 18.5.2007 stating therein that he received injuries on his body and his right hand. The passer by colleagues took him to the S.M.S. Hospital for treatment where he was admitted on 2.5.2007 and discharged on 9.5.2007. The FIR was lodged on 18.5.2007 on account of busy in the treatment. The Medical Board issued a disability certificate on 11.2.2008 for 18.68% disablement due to operation of Ulna bone of right hand. The claimant filed claim petition before the MACT.

4. The defendant No.1 owner/driver of the Santro Car did not file any reply to the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company filed a detailed reply raising preliminary objections before the MACT. The FIR was lodged after 16 days of the accident and no evidence was brought on record that why he has not lodge the report in these 16 days. The claim petition has been filed merely to get the compensation based on surmises and conjectures. It was further stated in the written statement that the claimant was required to prove that the driver/owner of the car was holding the valid driving license and as per the insurance policy, the insurance company was not informed about the accident. It was further stated that the claimant was required to prove that at the time of accident he was holding a valid license.

5. While deciding the issues 1 and 2 the MACT has considered the statement of Vijay Kumar that he was not rash and negligent in driving rather the car driver was rash and negligent in driving and therefore hit the claimant from the back as a result of which he claimant got some injuries and his vehicle was also damaged hence the accident occurred due to mistake of the car driver. On the FIR lodged by the claimant challan was filed before the A.C.J.M. No.4 Jaipur on 26.5.2007 in which charge under Sections 279 and 339 of IPC was framed against the driver/owner. In respect of issues 1 and 2 it was stated by the defendant insurance company that the claimant himself was rash and negligent in driving. The MACT after considering the evidence of AW-1 claimant and reply filed by the defendant company held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Santro Car because of which the claimant got injuries on his body and therefore the driver and owner of the car was held responsible for the accident. While deciding the Issue 4 the MACT has held that the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,70,806/- out of which Rs. 12,600/- has been awarded in respect of loss of income and Rs. 13,000/- in respect of treatment and healthy food etc. and Rs. 3,45,206/- in respect of loss of future income.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued hat the MACT has committed serious error by not deciding the preliminary objections raised by the appellant and has simply decided the same against the appellant without assigning any reason. The MACT has committed an error in not appreciating and considering the fact that he FIR was lodged by he claimant himself after 16 days after the accident which apparently appears to be a connivance and after thought. His colleague who took him to S.M.S. Hospital, also did not lodge the FIR on his behalf. The claimant was discharge on 9.5.2007 still he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document