Ladi Devi through LRs. vs Tej Karan Verma and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The appellant-claimants are aggrieved by the award dated 23.3.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed by the appellants. Briefly the facts of the case are that according to the claimants, on 16.12.2002 Ladi Devi was walking on the correct side of the road while she was coming back home from bazar. However, a scooter being driven rashly and negligently, bearing registration No. RJ14-19M-3539, came and struck her. Consequently, she suffered injuries on her head. Initially the claim petition was filed by Ladi Devi herself, for the injuries suffered by her in the vehicular accident. However, during the pendency of the claim petition, she expired on 4.3.2005. Thereafter, her legal representatives were brought on record. In order to establish their case Bhura Ram alias Bhanwar Lal alias Bhonri Lal, and Sita Ram were examined as witnesses. The claimants also submitted twenty documents. On the other hand the respondents neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, by award dated 23.3.2012, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence this appeal before this Court.

Mr. S.L. Kumawat, learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently contended that despite the admission made by owner of the vehicle in his reply to the notice given u/s 133, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. Secondly the large number of medical bills clearly prove that Ladi Devi was continuously under medical treatment from 16.2.2002 till her death on 4.3.2005. Therefore, the claimants had succeeded in establishing the fact that Ladi Devi had met with an accident with the offending vehicle, and had died due to the injuries suffered in the vehicular accident. But despite these facts being proven, the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim petition.

Heard the learned counsel, and perused the impugned award.

The claimants are required to establish two important facts: firstly, the deceased had met with a vehicular accident with the particular number of the vehicle given. Secondly the death of the deceased was only due to the accident that she met with and the injuries she suffered.

A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that Bhura Ram (AW-1) had clearly stated in his testimony that when he went to the site of the accident, he found his wife lying there and the scooter was also lying there. However, as he is an illiterate person he could not note down the number of the scooter. But simultaneously he does claim that Banne Singh was also with him. However, he does not tell the Court as to why the number of the scooter could not be noted down by Banne Singh. It is only afterwards that the number of the scooter was discovered. Moreover, Banne Singh has not even been examined as a witness. The learned Tribunal has also noticed that despite the fact that the FIR was lodged one day after the alleged accident, the number of the offending vehicle was not mentioned in the FIR. Thus, according to the learned Tribunal, the appellants failed to establish the first issue i.e. the particular offending vehicle with the particular registration number was, indeed, involved in the accident.

The learned Tribunal has also noticed that certain medical bills and medical records were produced to show that intermittently Ladi Devi was under medical treatment. But for her initial hospitalisation from 16.12.2002 to 18.12.2002, there was no medical record to show that subsequently she was hospitalised. Furthermore, there was no Post Mortem done on her body, in order to find out the cause of her death. Since a period of three years had lapsed from the date of the accident on 16.12.2002 till the date of her death on 4.3.2005, it was incumbent on the appellants to clearly establish that there was a live link between the accident, the injuries suffered, and the cause of her death. The appellants have failed to establish this live link. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in concluding that there is no evidence to show that the death of Ladi Devi was caused due to the injuries suffered by her in an alleged vehicular accident on 16.12.2002. The reasoning given by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted, as the reasoning is based on meticulous examination of the evidence produced by the appellants themselves. For the reasons stated above this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award. This appeal, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.