Bhagwant Singh vs Kuldeep Singh and Others

M. Jeyapaul, J.—Injured-claimant Bhagwant Singh has preferred the present appeal challenging the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal on the ground that the claimant failed to establish that the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. It is contended by the claimant that on 9.10.1999 when he was standing at the Bus Stop, Ajrawar, 1st respondent came driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently and dashed against him and as a result of which his right leg got fractured. He also sustained injuries on the ankle, foot and chest.

Due to non-filing of the written statement by the 1st and 2nd respondents, they were proceeded against ex-parte. In the written statement filed by the 3rd respondent-Oriental Insurance Company, it was contended that there was no such accident as projected by the claimant. A false claim petition has been filed by the claimant by colluding with the 1st and 2nd respondents in order to extract money from the insurance company.

Tribunal having thoroughly analysed the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, arrived at the conclusion that the claimant had failed to establish the accident that took place on 9.10.1999 wherein he sustained multiple injuries including right leg fracture.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that PW-2 and PW-3 have cogently spoken to the rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent. The doctor who was examined as PW-1 has also deposed that the claimant was admitted to the private hospital for treatment on the allegation that he sustained injuries in a motor accident. Failure to lodge the First Information Report would not falsify the case of the claimant that he sustained injuries in the motor accident. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly taken a decision and non-suited the claimant.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the Tribunal having weighed the evidence on record, has rightly held that the accident was not established.

PW-1 Dr. R.K. Mehndiratta would candidly admit that he had not passed on the information to the police as to the motor accident in spite of the fact that he recorded in the hospital records that it was an alleged case of motor accident. It is found that the hospital records as such were not produced before the Tribunal. The documents prepared by PW-1 alone have been produced before the Court. No doctor would keep silent even if the attendant of the patient informed him that he had already passed on the information to the police as he would be apprehensive of the police action for negligence in not reporting the accident which culminated in criminal action.

PW-2 Balbir Singh is a brought up witness. Though he would say that he was also present at the Bus Stand when the accident had taken place, he had not gone to the police station to inform about the motor accident. If at all the accident had taken place at the bus stop, the persons at the bus stop would have definitely passed on the information to the police.

The accident had taken place on 9.10.1999. The claimant-appellant had taken treatment as in-patient for almost 18 days. There was no reason for him to be silent about the accident till he sent a complaint on 5.4.2000. The xerox copy of the complaint alleged to have been sent on 5.4.2000 has been stage-managed in order to make it appear that there was an accident caused by the 1st respondent.

Of course, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the case of the claimant cannot be thrown out just because no FIR was registered. In the absence of an FIR, onus lies very heavily on the claimant to establish the accident that took place. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have come out with totally different versions as to the information alleged to have been passed on to the police. There was no reason for the police officials to suppress the accident if at all they received some information about the accident. No malafide intention was attributed to the police for not swinging to action based on the information furnished by any of the witnesses to the accident. I find that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the case of the appellant on the ground that he failed to establish the accident in which he allegedly sustained injuries. I do not find any merit in the appeal and therefore, the same stands dismissed.