The claimant must prove the injuries sustained in a motor traffic accident by preponderance of evidence, and any discrepancies in the evidence provided may lead to the dismissal of the claim.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mishra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The claimant – appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nainital in MACP No. 148 of 2008 dismissing the claim petition filed under Sections 140 & 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

3. It is borne out of the record that learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that claimant has not been able to prove by preponderance of evidence or probability that he suffered the injuries in a motor traffic accident that allegedly took place on 19.08.2007 mainly on the ground that the exhibited document i.e. the discharge certificate issued by the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science, Lucknow, has recorded in it that claimant was in the state of coma since 18.08.2007, though admittedly, the accident took place on 19.08.2007. The exhibited document, which is a xerox copy of a document prepared by Government Hospital B.D. Pandey, Nainital on 19.08.2007 reveals that the claimant received injuries in a road accident one day prior to the said date. This document shows that the injuries sustained or suffered by the claimant relates to 18.08.2007 and it is admitted case of the appellant that occurrence took place on 19.08.2007.

4. There is also another aspect of the matter. No FIR was registered immediately after accident or after a reasonable time of the incident. No criminal investigation started in this case. No document has been put forth by the claimant on this aspect. From the document which is exhibited as page no. 5C/4 in the trial court record, it transpires that a report was lodged before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital and the same has been lodged on 12.06.2008 approximately after ten months of the incident. Moreover, the seal affixed thereon is so blurred that it is impossible to decipher what is embossed on it. In addition to that, there is no material evidence on record to show what action has been taken by the SSP on that report. In fact, no effort has been made by the claimant – appellant in that respect of the case.

5. In that view of the matter, because of non explanation of the delay in filing of this application before SSP, Nainital and singular lack of material evidence and the fact that medical record reveals that claimant suffered injuries on 18.08.2007 and was in the state of coma on 18.08.2007 whereas the case of the appellant is that the occurrence took place on 19.08.2007, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality or perversity committed by the learned Tribunal in appreciating the evidence while dismissing the claim petition.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent copy as per Rules.

7. Registry is directed to the send the trial court record forthwith.