The delay in filing a police report does not negate the substantial evidence of injury in motor vehicle accident claims.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 19.01.2017 passed in MVC No.895/2016 by the XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi at Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’, for short), wherein petition filed by the appellant – injured under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V. Act’, for short) was rejected.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on

16.02.2016 at about 7:00 a.m., the petitioner was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EF-8132 as a pillion rider and Sri Anil Shindhe was rider of the said motorcycle. It is averred that when they reached near Udupi Dhaba on Halga service road, Belagavi, the rider of the motorcycle rode the same in rash and negligent manner. At that time, one dog came across the road, suddenly the rider applied the brake due to which the motorcycle skidded and petitioner fell down along with the motorcycle. Due to the impact, he sustained fracture to his right hand. Thereafter, he was immediately shifted to the Vijaya Hospital, Belagavi and provided treatment.

3. It is averred that the petitioner – injured was aged about 22 years and working as a coolie in bricks factory and earning ₹13,000/- per month and due to the accidental disability, he is unable to continue the work. Hence, he filed a petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation.

4. Respondent No.1 filed objections to the claim petition contending that the vehicle involved in the accident is duly insured by respondent No.2 and if any liability, respondent No.2 has to make good of the same. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed separate objections denying the averments of the claim petition. They have denied the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is averred that there is one day delay in filing the complaint and the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving licence. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal recorded the evidence, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and examined the Doctor as PW.2 and got marked 14 documents at Ex.P.1 to P.14. The respondent No.2 examined its official as RW.1 and got marked one document at Ex.R.1. The Tribunal considering the pleadings and evidence on record came to a conclusion that there is one day delay in lodging the complaint with regard to the accident. The Tribunal further recorded the finding that there is a variation with regard to the stand of the appellant in the Police complaint and the medical records which does not tally with each other and came to a conclusion that the Police documents could not corroborate with the documents on record. Hence, held that the claimant has failed to prove the case of accidental injuries and rejected the claim petition. Being aggrieved, the injured claimant/ appellant filed this appeal.

6. Learned counsel Sri.Harish S. Maigur appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in recording the incorrect findings. It is submitted that on

16.02.2016 immediately after the accident, the claimant/injured was admitted at Vijaya Hospital, Belagavi and provided treatment. The Ex.P.6 to P.10 clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has sustained grievous injury to his four fingers of the right hand in the road accident dated 16.02.2016. It is submitted that the petitioner was provided treatment at Vijaya Hospital, Belagavi. Hence, immediately on the said date of the incident, the complaint could not be registered and on the next day, the brother of the injured reported the accident to the jurisdictional