ORDER

This appeal is filed by the non-applicant owner/driver of the offending vehicle being aggrieved of award dated 31/03/2004 passed by IX Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in MACC No.20/2002 on the ground that subsequent to passing of the award, a report was furnished by the City Superintendent of Police, Ranjhi to the effect that Luna belonging to the appellant was not involved in the accident, but some other vehicle bearing registration No.MP-20-JA-9706 was involved, therefore, appellant should be exonerated of the liability to satisfy the award.

It is submitted that its a case of false implication. A perusal of the report will reveal that FIR (Ex.P-2) was lodged against Luna bearing registration No.MP-20-AT-9607 on 26/06/2001 for an accident which took place on 22/06/2001, whereas MLC was carried out at Gun Carriage Factory Hospital (Ex.P-3) makes a mention of number of the vehicle as MP-20/9706. It is submitted that the vehicle in possession of the appellant is bearing registration No.MP-20-JA-9706. Thus, in the final report (Ex.P-1) falsely vehicle of the appellant was implicated and there is no justification for change in the number of the vehicle from MP-20-AT-9607 which is clearly mentioned in the FIR lodged at the instance of the claimant Kismati Bai to vehicle bearing registration No.MP-20-JA-9706. In support of this contention it is submitted that report of claimant Kismati Bai is relevant and the same be taken into consideration.

No body is appearing for the respondent/claimant.

It is evident from the documents available on record that its a case of false implication inasmuch as there are three different versions of the vehicle involved in the accident. In the evidence the claimant could not explain the difference in her version in giving three different numbers namely to the doctors, to the police authorities and then implicating the vehicle of the appellant. The contention of Parasnath Sharma (PW-2) that he is son of the claimant and he had noted the number of the vehicle as MP-20-JA-9706, is not substantiated from the record inasmuch as neither any slip on which number of the vehicle was noted by this witness is produced on record and when admittedly FIR was lodged after four days of the incident, then what prevented him to inform his mother about the correct number of the offending vehicle that it was MP-20-JA- 9706 and not MP-20-AT-9607 as mentioned in the FIR. Therefore, evidence of this witness is not credit worthy.

In view of such facts, the Appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed and is allowed as its a case of false implication of the offending vehicle.

Certified copy as per rules.

(VIVEK AGARWAL)

JUDGE as