IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
Kuldeep Singh - Appellant
Versus
Sukhvinder Singh and others - Respondents
F.A.O No. 5119 of 2013
Decided on : 26-04-2017
DELAY - MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166, 173, 134(1)] - The court dismissed the claim petition due to delay in lodging the FIR and found the claimant's version contradictory and lacking credibility. The court referred to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including Section 166 (Duty of the driver to give information), Section 173 (Duty of the person in charge of the vehicle to report the accident), and Section 134(1) (Time limit for making the claim), to analyze the delay and the claimant's conduct in providing information to the authorities.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant's petition was dismissed by the Tribunal due to delay in lodging the FIR and inconsistencies in the claimant's version of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant's version lacked credibility, and the delay in lodging the FIR was not adequately explained. The court also noted that the claimant failed to provide details to the doctor at the first hospital, which raised doubts about the claimant's account of the accident.
Issues: Delay in lodging the FIR, credibility of the claimant's version, failure to provide details to the doctor at the first hospital.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR and the inconsistencies in the claimant's version of the accident were significant factors in dismissing the claim petition.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed by the court.
1. This appeal is by the claimant whose claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal as it was held that the delay in the FIR was on account of the fact that a vehicle had been introduced, the version given by the claimant was not found to be truthful and it did not inspire confidence.
2. Kuldeep Singh met with an accident on 6.3.2012. He was going alone on his motor cycle towards his village at 11.00 A.M. Respondent No. 1 came in a car and dashed against his motor cycle by coming from wrong side of the road. He sustained a fracture on the forehead and injuries on his entire body. It was claimed that respondent No. 1 stopped for some time and the claimant noted the number of the car and the driver thereafter fled.
3. The facts reveal that some unknown person shifted the injured to a hospital in Kurukshetra from where he was referred to NINS Hospital, Sector-34, Chandigarh. Ruqa was sent by the hospital. The police arrived in the hospital but the injured was unfit to make the statement on 9.3.2012 and 13.3.2012. The appellant was discharged from the hospital on 20.3.2012. The discharge summary shows the date of discharge as 20.3.2012. However, Ex. P-6 shows that the patient was unfit to make the statement even on 30.3.2012. There is an overwriting on the date. On the back of Ex. P-6, opinion was given by the medical officers that the patient was fit to make the statement on 24.4.2012 and even on 30.4.2012. No statement was given. The FIR was lodged on 1.5.2012. The Tribunal noted that Kuldeep Singh was admitted in the hospital with head injury and there was a depressed fracture of the frontal bone and there was a lacerated cut over the forehead extending to the upper ridge nose and there was a profused bleeding and the patient was unconscious at the time of admission. It also noted that there was a delay in lodging the FIR. The manner in which the accident was stated in the cross-examination was found to be contradictory to what was claimed in the claim petition. It noted that the injured was discharged in a satisfactory condition on 20.3.2012 and strangely the doctors made a report that the patient was unfit even on 30.3.2012 and there was tampering in the criminal case file which showed that at every stage, the doctors and the police had been manipulated. It noted in para 15 of the award that there was tampering in the date of discharge as well and the statement of the claimant did not inspire confidence.
4. I have heard the counsel for both the sides.
5. The statement on behalf of the appellant is that even a delay of three month in lodging the FIR was not fatal in Ravi versus Badrinarayan and others 2011 AIR (SC) (Cri) 594 and the injured was not in a fit condition to make a statement and he had made a statement to the police on 1.5.2012 and the claim petition should not have been dismissed merely on account of the fact that there was a delay in the FIR and the findings be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Tribunal to decide the case again.
6. On the other hand, the submission on behalf of the respondent is that they had produced the admission slip in the first hospital where the injured was taken and it would show that the patient was conscious and oriented and he had given the history of roadside accident which occurred half an hour ago and he was referred to NINS Hospital, Sector-34, Chandigarh. It does not give the name of the person who had brought the injured to the hospital. It was urged that no ruqa was sent from that hospital as the injured did not give the details to the doctor and when he was shifted to NINS Hospital and Ruqa was sent from NINS and the police arrived in the hospital but the doctors had declared him unfit and the date of discharge in Ex. P7 is 20.3.2012. It was urged that it was not the case of the claimant that he was admitted again in NINS Hospital. Therefore, the opinion given on Ex. P6 is doubtful and there is a cutting on the date which has been changed to 30.3.2012. It
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.