U. C. MAHESHWARI, J.

( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the award dated 13/3/1996, passed by the third Additional Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Satna in Claim Case No. 38 of 1994 whereby application under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the appellants, was dismissed. Appellants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 25. 1. 1992 Yashwant Singh, appellant No. 1, was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. MK A 35 from babupur to Satna and such bus had huge passenger rush and was being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner consequently met an accident near badkhal Nala and due to opening of the gate of it appellant No. 1 fell down outside resultantly got injured. He was shifted to district Hospital, Satna where Dr. S. K. Jain, AW 4, treated him and subsequently referred to Bombay for further surgical treatment. According to the pleadings of the appellants, he got fractures of tibia and fibula on the left leg thereby permanent disability has been caused. It is further said that due to this injury, he is not able to discharge his duties as earlier and lot of amount has also been spent over the treatment.

( 3 ) IT was further pleaded that the incident was reported to the police as per Exh. P1 and the respondent No. 2 was registered owner of the bus and insured with respondent No. 3. Initially this claim was preferred claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 and interest.

( 4 ) RESPONDENTS filed their written statements and denied the allegations pleaded by the appellant and it was pleaded that the appellant No. 1 was not travelling in the bus. If any incident, as alleged, by the appellant, was happened then certainly, the offence would have been registered with the police. But in the absence of it the contentions of the appellants are not reliable. In view of aforesaid pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and proceeded with the trial and on appreciation of evidence, dismissed the claim petition. Hence this appeal.

( 5 ) IT is not disputed that no offence regarding such accident was registered at any police station either on report by the complainant or any other passenger or on information by District Hospital, Satna.

( 6 ) THE counsel for appellants submitted that the registration of the criminal case is not the condition precedent to claim the compensation under section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988. When appellant no. 1 got injured due to alleged accident met by rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 1, he was shifted to the District Hospital, Satna and remained under treatment so it was not possible for him to go and lodge the report but at subsequent stage a report in writing was sent which was not challenged by any of the respondents during cross-examination of the appellant. Therefore even on this report if offence was not registered then merely on this ground the claim of appellant could not be dismissed. His further submission was that the incident was proved by other evidence laid on record so the Tribunal is bound to consider and allow the claim application for reasonable compensation.

( 7 ) HE also submitted that it has been proved that appellant No. 1 was travelling in bus and due to negligence of respondent no. 1 got injured for which he remained under treatment for a long time not only at Satna but Bombay also in which huge amount has been spent and the same is proved by the appellant as AW 2 which is further supported by witness Shyamji Malviya, AW 1, a passenger of bus. Appellant no. 1 boarded the said bus from Babupur, it was proved by Kamlesh, AW 3, who also deposed regarding injury and treatment of the appellant No. 1. It was also said that dr. S. K. Jain, AW 4, who treated and prepared the initial injury report and referred the appellant No. 1 to Bombay Hospital, bombay for further treatment has proved the date and injury in his deposition which is evident by Exh. P3 discharge c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document