MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT INDORE BENCH
N.K.Mody, J.
Vinod Kumar S-o Shantilal - Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Hafiz S-o Harun Bhai and Others - Respondent
M. A. No. 1753 of 2005
Decided On : 15-11-2011
Motor Accident - Compensation - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166] - The court discussed the identification of the offending vehicle, delay in lodging the FIR, and the sufficiency of evidence. The appellant argued based on legal precedents that the delay in lodging the FIR and the identification of the vehicle should not dismiss the claim case. However, the court found that the appellant failed to prove the circumstances of the accident and the identification of the offending vehicle, and there was a delay in lodging the complaint. The court concluded that no illegality was committed by the tribunal in dismissing the claim case, and thus, the appeal was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a claim case for compensation due to injuries sustained in a motor accident. The claim was dismissed by the tribunal, leading to the appellant's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to prove the circumstances of the accident and the identification of the offending vehicle, and there was a delay in lodging the complaint.
Issues: Identification of the offending vehicle, delay in lodging the FIR, sufficiency of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that no illegality was committed by the tribunal in dismissing the claim case filed by the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.
Appellant by Mr. R. N. Dave, advocate.
Respondent No. 3 by Mr. S. V. Dandwate, advocate.
With the consent of the parties matter heard finally.
Order dictated in Open Court.
Being aggrieved by the award dated 3-3-2005 passed by XVII MACT, Indore in claim case No. 22/03 whereby claim case filed by the appellant for compensation on account of injuries sustained in a motor accident was dismissed, present appeal has been filed.
2. Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim case before the learned tribunal alleging that on 4-6-2001 when the appellant was going on his motor-bike along with pillion rider Omprakash Mangal. It was alleged that when the appellant was near village-Machal, at that time respondent No. 2 who was driving the offending loading rickshaw bearing Registration No. M.P-09/K/3519 rashly and negligently which was owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3 dashed the appellant with the result appellant sustained injuries in his right leg. It was prayed that claim case be allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim case was contested by the respondent No. 3 wherein all the allegations made in the claim case were denied. It was prayed that claim case filed by the appellant be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned tribunal dismissed the claim case against which the present appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned award passed by the learned tribunal is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set-aside. It is submitted that appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident which took place on 4-6-2001 and appellant was brought to Gokuldas Hospital, Indore and remained hospitalized upto 12-6-2001. It is submitted that in the record of Hospital it is mentioned that appellant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. It is submitted that FIR was lodged on 9-6-2001. It is submitted that since the appellant was hospitalized, therefore, it was not excepted from the appellant to lodge the FIR on the date of accident. It is submitted that learned tribunal committed error in dismissing the claim case filed by the appellant on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. It is submitted that appellant has spent a huge amount in his treatment. It is submitted that the ground which was taken by the learned tribunal in dismissing the claim case filed by the appellant was that the offending vehicle was not identified. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Mannulal vs. Surendra Pal Singh, 2001(1) MPLJ 423 = 2002 ACJ 609 wherein the question of identification of vehicle was involved and the vehicle was identified by the claimant's witness at the police station, this Court held that since truck was seized and police arrested the driver and truck was seen by bystanders but registration number could not be noted since it was going at a fast speed, the findings of learned tribunal were reversed holding that truck was involved in the accident and its driver was rash and negligent. Learned counsel further placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan, 2011(3) MPLJ (S.C.) 255 = 2011 ACJ 911 wherein there was delay in lodging the FIR Hon'ble Apex Court held that cause of injury mentioned in injury report prepared by the doctor is road accident, therefore, even if FIR was lodged after 3 months of the accident and the delay is explained the claim case cannot be dismissed. On the strength of aforesaid position of law learned counsel submits that appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the impugned award passed by learned tribunal be set-aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that pillion rider Omprakash Mangal was not examined. It is submitted that Deepak Mangal son of pillion rider who lodged the FIR after 5 days was also not examined. It is submitted that FIR was lodged on 9-6-2001 and offending vehicle was seized on 26-7-2001 and after completin
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.