The court established that a claim case should not be dismissed solely due to non-examination of the claimant, and considered the principles of evidence under the Motor Vehicle Act and the discretionary presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Appellant is the claimant who has preferred the instant appeal against the Judgment passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 123 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim case of the claimant due to non-examination of claimants and other material witnesses.

2. The appellant/claimant filed the claim application under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (hereinafter called as M.V. Act) for the permanent disability suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident on 18.09.2000 while on way to Patna from Jhumri Telaiya, District-Koderma along with Ravi Vishwas and Shiv Ratan Sharma by Maruti Car No. BR-17-E-4703 which met with an accident with trailer? bearing registration No. NL-01A-2715. It is averred that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the trailer. One of the occupants sustained fatal injuries and the claimant sustained serious injuries. Petitioner has asserted that he sustained grievous injuries in his person. There were multiple fractures. He had to go for specialized treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Old Rajendra Nagar New, Delhi. Koderma P.S. Case No. 338/2000 was registered against the driver of the trailer under Sections 279, 304A and 337 of IPC. Police on investigation found the case true and submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the trailer. It is averred that his age was 39 years on the date of motor accident and was having a monthly income of Rs. 10,650/-.

3. The owner and insurer of both the vehicles were impleaded in the claim case. Owner of the trailer did not appear and consequently ex-parte proceeding was drawn. The owner of the Maruti and the insurer of both the vehicles have appeared and contested the claim case.

4. Considering the pleadings of both the sides, the following issues have been framed for adjudication: -

(i) Whether the present claim case is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle Trailor bearing No. NL-01A-2715 and Maruti Car bearing No. BR-17E-4703 resulting in injury causing permanent disablement of Pradip Kumar Pandaya @ Pradip Jain?

(iii) Whether the Trailer and Maruti Car both involved in the accident were duly insured on the relevant date of accident?

(iv) Whether the claimant is entitled for any amount of compensation and if yes, then to what extent and against which of the opposite parties?

5. On the factum of accident i.e. Issue No (ii) no finding has been recorded by the Tribunal since the claimant the injured had not been examined and, therefore, it declined to consider the other corroborative evidence on the factum of accident.

6. The appeal has been preferred on the ground that the other eye witnesses have supported the case of the claimant and therefore claim case ought not to have been dismissed on account of non-examination of the claimant.

7. The following are the main point for determination in the present appeal:

a. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim application for non-examination of the claimant who filed the case for injury suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident?

b. Whether the claimant is entitled for any amount of compensation and if yes, then to what extent and from which of the O.P.s?

8. Legally a claim case cannot and should not be thrown overboard merely because the injured claimant has not been examined particularly when there were other evidences on record on the factum of accident. This is for the reason that the adjudication in claim cases is not adversarial litigation but under Section 168 & 169 of the MV Act summary inquiry is to be held. Even in normal suit non-examination of the plaintiff will not be fatal in all cases. Court can draw an adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act depending on the facts and cir