The absence of an FIR does not invalidate a compensation claim if the accident and injuries are substantiated by evidence. Legal representatives have the right to maintain and prosecute a claim petition in case of the claimant's death, particularly in relation to 'loss to the estate' due to the vehicular accident.

1. The Civil Ist. Misc. Appeal is directed against judgment/order dated 12.9.2003 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition titled Sansar Chand v. Chander Mohan.

2. It appears that Shri Sansar Chand S/o Anant Ram R/o Mastgarh, Jammu was on 12.4.1999 hit by a scooter bearing registration No.JK02-0294 driven rashly and negligently by Shri Chander Mohan S/o Lakshman Dass R/o Pacci Daki, Jammu Respondent No.1 herein. The accident took place outside Hospital at Jammu where the claimant was going to attend his hospitalized son. The accident left the claimant seriously injured and resulted in fracture in his left leg. The claimant was taken to the hospital and administered medical treatment. The claimant thereafter on 1.2.2001 filed a claim petition under section 140 read with 166 Motor Vehicle Act against Shri Jagjit Singh S/o Raghunath Singh R/o Mastgarh Jammu owner of the scooter Respondent No.2 herein, Shri Chander Mohan driver of the scooter -- Respondent No.1 and New India Insurance Company Respondent No.3 herein, with which the scooter was insured. The claimant asked for a compensation of Rs.10,85,000/-

3. The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance Company on the grounds that no accident as stated in the claim petition ever took place; that the offending vehicle was driven by a person not holding an effective and valid driving license and that the offending vehicle was driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It was further contended that the accident had not taken palace as the report of the accident was not lodged with the police concerned. It was pleaded that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation.

The owner of the vehicle and its driver opted to stay away from the proceedings and were set ex-parte on 29.09.2001. The Tribunal on 17.11.2001 settled the following issues:

Whether an accident took place on 12.04.1999, near Children Hospital Jammu due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle No. JK02/294 by its driver respondent No.1 in which the petitioner had sustained injuries, if so of what nature? -OPP

If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? -OPP

Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident and the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, without R.C, rout permit and fitness certificate etc.? OPR-3

4. The claimant appeared in the witness box and examined two witnesses namely Mohammad Arif and Dr. Anil Gupta to substantiate his claim. The respondents on the other hand, did not examine any witness to support their stand or rebut the evidence adduced by the claimant. The respondents evidence was closed on 19.4.2003.

5. The Tribunal upon hearing counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings and the evidence on the file, dismissed the claim petition vide its judgment dated 12.09.2003, impugned in the appeal.

6. The judgment/order dismissing the claim petition is questioned on the grounds that the judgment is against law and facts and liable to be set aside. It is pleaded that the Tribunal has taken erroneous view of the law, governing the subject and brushed aside the evidence adduced by the claimant.

7. It needs to be pointed out that the appellant passed away during pendency of the Appeal and thus Court overruling the objection of the Respondent No.3 to the impleadment of legal representatives of the appellant, that the claim petition had abated in wake of death of the appellant allowed the application for bringing on record legal representatives of the deceased appellant vide order dated 1.12.2008. The decision on the issue regarding entitlement of the legal representatives to get compensation, was postponed and directed to be dealt with, at the time the main appeal was decided.

8. Heard and considere

Click Here to Read the rest of this document