Mahavir Parshad vs Ashok Kalra

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.—This is an appeal filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (For brevity "the Act") by unsuccessful claimant whose claim petition was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (in short "the Tribunal") as he had failed to establish that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter by Ashok Kalra. The facts, necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein are that on 1.4.1994 at about 8.00 PM, appellant-Mahavir Parshad who was running a tea shop on Karnal Road opposite Irrigation Canal Colony, Kaithal went to the opposite side of the road to case himself from urine etc. and when he was coming back to his shop, respondent No. 1 driving his scooter No. HR-08-8918 rashly and negligently came from the side of Pehowa Chowk and collided with the claimant. As a result thereof, the appellant received injuries on the right leg and arm. Thereafter, the claimant approached the Police to register a case against respondent No. 1. However, a rapat roznamcha report was recorded on 22.8.1994. Accordingly, the appellant filed a claim petition claiming Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation along with interest. The said claim petition was contested by the respondents by filing separate written statements. Besides raising various preliminary objections, it was pleaded by respondent No. 1 that no such accident had taken place and this aspect was also admitted by the claimant before the police. Respondent No. 2 also pleaded that as per DDR dated 22.8.1994 recorded by the police, the claimant had admitted that the accident was not due to the fault of respondent No. 1. The other averments made in the claim petition were denied and prayer for dismissal of the same was made. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal:--

"(i) Whether the accident resulting into injuries to Mahavir Parshad took place due to rash and negligent driving of Ashok Kalra, Driver of Scooter No. HR-08-8918? OPP

(ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, what amount of compensation is the claimant/applicant entitled? OPP

(iii) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid Driving Licence? OPP

(iv) Relief."

The Tribunal on appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence decided issue No. 1 against the claimant holding that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by respondent No. 1. Further, the claim petition was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 140 of the Act. Issue No. 2 had become redundant whereas issue No. 3 was decided in favour of respondent No. 1 Accordingly, the Tribunal vide award dated 10.3.1998 dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the statement made before the police authorities that the scooter was on his right side was taken by the police authorities under force. According to the learned counsel, the claimant was entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Act. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal had erred in deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the respondents.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence had come to the conclusion that there was no rash and negligent driving of scooter by respondent No. 1.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.

The Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1 against the claimant had held as under:--

"On appraisal of the same, the same is held devoid of force because in the case in hand, report dated 22.08.1994 was not recorded in haste rather it was recorded after the period of more than four and half months. This aspect of recording of the statement by the police has also not been denied by the claimant in his statement, has in clear words, admitted this fact that the statement was recorded by the Police as per his director, though he disputed that it was signed forcibly. But his stand that this statement was signed forcibly seems to be un-plausible especially when he has not agitated over the same either before the Police Authority or before the court till date. Thus his admission that in view of his admission that it was written at his direction leaves no other chance to doubt the entry in the DDR Ex. PC and as in view of the same, it becomes apparent on file that the accident did not occur due to negligence driving of respondent No. 1. So claimant is bound by the said admission and thus he cannot be allowed to reopen a new case because rule of estoppel operate against him because the occurrence was cognizable one and had there been any truth in the allegations, then Police on the basis of the statement of me claimant was bound to lodge a criminal case registered in this regard and as police has believed this statement and they have consigned the papers. Whatever, done by the police is in accordance with the four corner of the law and thus the claimant now cannot be allowed to divert from the same and for creating a new case of his own, especially when after the occurrence he has not bothered to report the matter to the police. Even otherwise also ignoring this aspect if the averments of the claimants regarding accident are taken into account, then claimant, in his statement had admitted that the Scooter was on his right side. It was not a fast speed and the speed was 10-15 Kms/Hour. Thus in view of this admission it is hard to believe the case of the claimant and in his statement before the court, he has not deposed anything regarding sudden arrival of the animals etc. Thus in view of the same, it is hard to accept the claimant case that this accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of scooter aforesaid by respondent No. 1.

The counsel for the claimant at this stage, has next argued that even if the claimant has failed to prove his case that this accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1, even then his claim is maintainable in view of the provisions of section 140 of MVA Act, but the same on appraisal is also held to be devoid of force, because claimant neither in his pleadings has pleaded a case of permanent disability nor he has proved the same through cogent and authenticated evidence and, thus, the benefit under the provisions of section 140 MV Act is also no more available to him and thus issue is hereby decided against the claimant and in favour of the respondents."

In view of the aforesaid findings which were not shown to be erroneous or perverse in any manner with reference to any material on record, no fault could be found with the aforesaid findings. In the findings as noticed hereinabove, there is nothing to suggest that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of scooter bearing registration No. HR-08-8918. The Tribunal on appreciation of material on record had also concluded that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation under Section 140 of the Act as the claimant had neither pleaded permanent disability nor led any cogent and convincing evidence to establish the same. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are based on record. Once that is so, the claim petition has rightly been dismissed by the Tribunal. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.