AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—This appeal is focussed as against the Fair and decreetal order dated 05.12.2003, made in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 1996, on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Padmanabhapuram.
Heard both sides.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim of petition, the petitioner before the Tribunal has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
A re''sume'' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition would run thus:
The gist and kernel of the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal, as found exposited from the original petition, is to the effect that Kanyakumari
District Industrial Centre made arrangements for a training tour for the trainees, and accordingly the van belonging to first respondent was arranged
and in that as many as 20 persons including the claimants were travelling. While so, on 08.08.1995 at about 11.00 A.M. while the van was running
along the Konam to Marthandam Road in Velliancode area, while negotiating a curve the driver of the van driven it in a rash and negligent manner
and made it to ""roll down"" and in that process the petitioner sustained multiple injuries. According to the petitioner, as he took treatment in various
private hospitals but no F.I.R. was registered and hence belatedly he sent a petition to the Superintendent of Police for registering a case and even
thereafter no F.I.R. was registered. Accordingly, he prayed for compensation.
Denying the allegations made in the petition the owner of the vehicle filed a counter with the averments which would run thus:
The petitioner did not travel in that van. The above van met with a minor accident as the tyre got burst and because of that, it proceeded side
ways.
However, the Insurance Company filed a counter to the effect that no such accident as alleged in the petition took place and it is nothing but a
false claim.
During trial, on the side of the claimants P.W.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.10 were marked and on the side of the respondents
Ex.R.1 to R.5 were marked. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the petitioner.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Tribunal the petitioner filed this appeal on the following main grounds:
Despite evidence adduced before the Tribunal, it gave a finding as against the petitioner as though no accident had taken place and that he did not
sustain any injury in the accident. The Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the claim was made by the owner of the van in connection with the
accident and compensation was obtained by him for the damage sustained to the vehicle. Simply because no F.I.R. was registered, the claim
cannot be negatived. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the order of the Tribunal and allowing the appeal.
The Points for consideration are
Whether the accident occurred at all, if so whether it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent?
What should be compensation, if any, awardable?
During arguments, it transpired that when the said M.C.O.P. was pending before the Tribunal two C.R.P.s were filed. One as against the order
of dismissal for adducing additional evidence and the other for impleading the driver of the vehicle concerned. Those C.R.P.s viz. C.R.P.
Nos.2604 and 2605 of 2003 were allowed vide orders dated 23.02.2006. In the meanwhile even before those C.R.P.s were allowed in favour of
the petitioner, the M.C.O.P. was dismissed by the Tribunal.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would make a submission to the effect that the matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal for adducing
evidence after impleading the concerned driver as per the orders passed earlier in the said C.R.Ps. However, the learned Counsel appearing for
the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company would oppose the prayer of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Perused records.
The crux of the case is that immediately after the accident no F.I.R. was registered. The core question arises as to whether non registration of
F.I.R. would be fatal to the claim of the petitioner. There is no hard and past rule that in all cases there should be an F.I.R. registered and it is not a
sine quo non for claiming compensation before the Tribunal. The petitioner in this case was taken to one private hospital because of the injuries
sustained by him and at the earliest point of time no F.I.R. has got registered.
According to the insurance company, the owner of the vehicle got compensation from the insurance company as though the said van got
damaged on 08.08.1995 by citing one Gopalakrishnan as driver of the van. Further, as the second respondent Moni had no driving licence,
Gopalakrishnan was shown as driver and the insurance company was cheated by the owner of the vehicle. P.W.1 also would state that the
accident actually took place. No co-passengers were examined by the petitioner. The driver was not also examined. It is a trite proposition of law
that whenever there is possibility of adducing plausible evidence and if it has not been adduced, then naturally no relief be granted in favour of the
petitioner.
The learned Counsel for the appellant understanding the legal position correctly, prays for remitting back the M.C.O.P. to the trial Court in
consonance and compliance with the order of this Court passed in C.R.P. Nos.2604 and 2605 of 2003, so that he would be able to adduce
suitable evidence after impleading Gopalakrishnan, the driver also. The petitioner is pursuing the litigative war for very many years and since he
expressed his genuine intention to prosecute the case further and prima facie even as per the insurance company''s case, the owner of the vehicle
also stated that the said van got damaged due to burst of the tyre and compensation was paid to the owner. I am of the considered view that one
more opportunity could be given to the petitioner to adduce additional evidence. Hence, the order of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 1996 is
set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal so as to enable the petitioner to implead Gopalakrishnan as one of the respondents and
after complying with the procedures, and giving due opportunity to adduce evidence not only to the petitioner but also to the owner of the vehicle,
insurance company and the party to be impleaded, the Tribunal shall decide the M.C.O.P. The registry is directed to send the bundle back to the
Tribunal within fifteen days and the matter shall be disposed of within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of. No costs.