The duty to report accidents immediately, the importance of genuine claims, and the consequences of filing false claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the award dated 26.05.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala whereby he dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant had not proved that he had suffered injury in a road traffic accident out of the use of Maruti vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-E-0296.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimant Prasenjit Saha filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 claiming that he suffered head injury in a road traffic accident involving vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-E-0296 owned by Sri Tukan Roy alias Sibasish Roy, son of Sri Jagadish Roy. It was alleged that when the claimant was returning to his home from Ranirbazar motor stand towards Bridyanagar at about 4 p.m. the offending vehicle was moving towards Ranirbazar at a high speed and the driver of the vehicle attempted to avoid a probable accident since a dog had dashed across the road and resultantly the claimant was injured. In the claim petition as originally filed the insurance company was mentioned as National Insurance Company Ltd. However, by later amendment the name of the insurance company was changed to New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

3. The owner of the vehicle admitted the accident but stated that while a passerby was returning from Bridyanagar from Ranirbazar in the middle of the road all of a sudden considering the contributory negligence on the part of the injured the accident occurred. It was further stated that the vehicle was duly insured and, therefore, the liability is handed over to insurance company.

4. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. filed its written statements denying the allegation made in the claimant petition in toto and a specific plea was taken that no accident had taken place and the claim petition had been filed by the petitioner in collusion with the owner of the vehicle and the same should be rejected. It was specifically pointed out that no police case was registered nor investigated by the police and, therefore, the liability to pay compensation was denied.

5. The parties led evidence. The claimant stated that he met with the accident on 7.7.2004 and again repeated that the driver of the vehicle tried to avoid an accident with a dog and dashed against him. He received injuries and thereafter was admitted in G.B.P. Hospital and then referred to S.S.K.M. Hospital, Kolkata. According to the claimant his family members were under the idea that the FIR with regard to accident had already been reported and, therefore, the report with regard to the accident was actually lodged on 1.8.2004 i.e. after he was discharged from G. B. P. Hospital.

6. In cross-examination the claimant admitted that he had submitted the copy of the G.D. entry dated 1.8.2004. The owner of the vehicle filed his affidavit and stated that his name was Sibasish alias Token Roy and stated that he was the owner of the Maruti Van and his vehicle was duly insured and had all other valid documents. He stated that his driver had told him about the involvement of the vehicle in the accident in question on 7.7.2004. He further stated that he discharged the driver and does not remember his name.

7. The learned Tribunal found glaring contradictions in the case of the claimant and dismissed the claim petition. The learned Tribunal found that there was no evidence produced to show that the plaintiff was treated in G.B.P. Hospital from 07.07.2004 to 29.07.2004 and no record of this treatment had been proved. The learned Tribunal also found that in the Out Door Patient (OPD) ticket dated 31.07.2004 issued from SSKM Hospital, Kolkata it was mentioned that the petitioner had sustained injury on his head due to the fall on 10.07.2004. In another Out Door Patient ticket dated 03.08.2004 issued from S.S.K.M Hospital it was mentioned that the petitioner sustained head injury “by falling in an accident”. Before the word “accident” an