Honble CHAUHAN, J.–In the afternoon of 14.12.1988, when the appellant was going from Panch Batti Circle to Ajmeri Gate, on M.I. Road, one of the busiest roads of Jaipur, without any signal, the respondents Car hit the appellant from the back. Consequently, not only was the Scooter damaged, but more importantly the appellant suffered a fracture of his hipbone. The appellant had to undergo an operation whereby a steel road was inserted in his hip joint. According to the appellant, he stayed in SMS Hospital at Jaipur for five days. Subsequently, because the Doctors of the Hospital were on strike, therefore he was shifted to the Sharma Nursing Home where he stayed for almost 80 days. Consequently, he filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, for compensation of Rs. 1,03,305/-.

(2). Since the Driver and the owner did not appear before the Tribunal, therefore the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against them. The Insurance Company filed its written statement wherein it admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with them, but denied the factum of the accident. The learned Tribunal framed six issues. In order to prove its case, the appellant examined four witnesses. But, the respondents did not examine any witness from their side. After hearing both the parties, vide award dated 2.6.1995 the learned Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal before us.

(3). Mr. Mahendra Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim petition on the ground that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of one and a half months. It has further rejected the claim petition on the ground that although the police filed a negative Final Report, the appellant did not challenge the same before the criminal court. Thus, according to him the learned Tribunal has erred in basing its logic on the outcome of the criminal case. Moreover, according to him the testimony of the injured is corroborated by the site plan (Ex.6), Recovery Memo of the Scooter (Ex.7) and by the Recovery Memo of the Car (Ex.9). Hence, there is both oral and documentary evidence to establish the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has ignored the evidence, which was readily available on record.

(4). On the other hand, Mr. Vinod Tyagi the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has supported the award. According to him, despite the appellant having an adult son, the FIR was not lodged for more than one and a half months. Furthermore, the explanation given by the appellant that there was no one in the family who could have lodged the FIR is belied by the fact that he had an adult son, Prakash Chand, who could have easily lodged the FIR. Therefore, not only the factum of the accident is suspect, but the credit-worthiness of the witness is doubtful. Moreover, while the appellant claims that the Scooter was ``badly damaged, the mechanical report indicates that merely the break light cover was broken and the part of right side of the Scooter was damaged. Thus, the Scooter had suffered minor damages. Hence, the documentary evidence on record contradicts the appellants testimony. Moreover, the appellant did not file a protest petition against the negative Final Report submitted by the police. Thus, according to the learned counsel the award does not call for any interference.

(5). We have heard the counsels for the parties, scanned the evidence on record and critically analyzed the impugned award.

(6). A bare perusal of the award reveals that the conclusions drawn by the learned Tribunal are based on the progress and failure of the criminal case, which was initiated by the lodging of the FIR. The learned Tribunal presumes that the outcome of a civil proceeding would be co-related to and would depend on the outcome of the criminal proceeding. Such a presumption is legally unwarranted. For, such a presumption supposes that the success of a claim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document