Habib vs Mukesh Kumar and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 88 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. This is an appeal brought by the claimant challenging the award dated 13.8.2012 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short, "the Tribunal") vide which his claim petition has been dismissed. The claimant, Habib suffered injuries in the accident that took place on 12.3.2011 and he brought a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs which has been dismissed vide the impugned award.

On 12.3.2011, after getting free from his duties, Habib, the claimant was going to his house in a three wheeler bearing registration No. HR-38Q-7911 alongwith one Rati Ram. The said three wheeler was driven by Mukesh Kumar, respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. Despite the request made by the claimant and other passengers, he did not slow down the vehicle. When they were near Chimni Bai Dharamshala, due to rash and negligent driving of the three wheeler, the same turned turtle and the claimant suffered injures in the said accident on account of which, he remained hospitalized and spent a huge amount in his treatment.

The respondents resisted the claim petition and denied the averments of the claimant regarding the manner of accident. It is denied that any accident took place with the three wheeler bearing registration No. HR-38Q-7911 driven by respondent No. 1. It is further claimed that respondent No. 1 has been falsely involved in collusion with the police to get compensation.

Learned Tribunal concluded under issue No. 1 that the claimant had though, suffered injures in a roadside accident that took place on 12.3.2011, yet he failed to prove that the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of three wheeler bearing registration No. HR-38Q-7911.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Rati Ram could not get the correct number of the vehicle written in the FIR. According to him, it was later on found that the vehicle was bearing registration No. HR-38Q-7911. He has further submitted that the challan was ultimately presented against Mukesh Kumar for causing the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of three wheeler bearing registration No. HR-38Q-7911.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the complainant was also injured in the accident and that with a view to change the number of the three wheeler, he had given his affidavit dated 6.4.2011. He has submitted that in these circumstances, learned Tribunal should not have taken the view it has taken in the matter.

FIR Ex. P1 had been lodged by Rati Ram who was claimed by the appellant to have been travelling with the injured in the offending three wheeler. In the FIR, Ex. P1, the number of the three wheeler has been mentioned as HR-38P-9581. Though, affidavit of Rati Ram has been there to the effect that the vehicle bore registration No. HR-38Q-7911 yet he did not mention in the affidavit as to how the mistake occurred. If he could see the number of the offending vehicle, he should have seen the number correctly and if the number was seen correctly then it could not be changed later on.

There could be a change here or there in the registration number of a vehicle of a digit or letter having similar appearance. Such a change can be expected, but when the change is of the entire number, it cannot be accepted.

Rati Ram had noticed a number initially and mentioned the same in the FIR as HR-38P-9518. He is said to have changed the number by making an affidavit. He is not examined at the trial by the claimant. In the absence of his statement, it could not be believed that noticing of wrong number was a bona fide mistake on his part. Moreover, the change in the number is to such an extent that it cannot be believed that the earlier number was noticed wrongly on account of a bona fide mistake.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the fact that challan has been presented against Mukesh Kumar for his driving vehicle No. HR-38Q-7911 is of no avail to the claimant. Even the investigating officer has not been examined in this case who could prove any circumstance to show that in fact, the vehicle involved in the accident was HR-38Q-7911 and not HR-38P-9518. In this view of the matter, the appeal appears to have no merit and the same is dismissed.