Maya Devi vs Bharat Singh

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—This judgment shall dispose of both the abovementioned appeals, filed by the claimants-appellants, challenging the impugned Award dated 4.3.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Adhoc), FTC, Rewari, whereby the claim petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petitions on the ground that the accident is not proved on record. He submits that the FIR was lodged on the same day by the injured Maya Devi with regard to the accident. In the accident, the husband of the injured Maya Devi died, whereas she received multiple injuries on the vital parts of the body. She stated in her statement that she told all the facts to the police and on the basis of it, the FIR was lodged. The driver of the offending vehicle is facing the trial in the criminal case. However, the learned Tribunal ignored the testimonies of PW1 Maya Devi, ASI Kamal Kant, PW3 Mukesh Yadav,, PW4 Rajiv Singh and PW5 Virender, who speak in the same line with regard to the accident. He prays for allowing the appeal and granting a reasonable compensation.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submit that neither the name of the driver, nor the number of the vehicle were mentioned in the FIR. The FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle. The learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petitions. Thus, they pray for the dismissal of the appeals.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

From the perusal of the record, it emerges that the FIR was lodged by one Virender Singh, father of injured Mritunjay against unknown vehicle and unknown driver. In their affidavits dated 16.4.2008, Ex. RW/B and RW/C, Mritunjay and Maya Devi stated that they noted the number of the vehicle and later on came to know the name of the driver of the offending vehicle as Bharat Singh. In his statement RW1/A before the police dated 15.2.2008, Mritunjay, did not speak about the name of the driver and number of the offending vehicle. The name of the driver and number of the vehicle surfaced on the record on 16.4.2008. Maya Devi in his cross-examination deposed that she had lodged the FIR, whereas, as per the record the FIR was lodged by Virender Singh, who was not examined as witness. The injuries suffered by Maya Devi is not proved on record. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, Maya Devi deposed that she alongwith her husband Bharamanand were rushed to General Hospital, Rewari, and medical examination was conducted but there is no record of General Hospital, showing the admission or medical examination of Maya Devi. From the reading of the statements of the witness, this Court finds that there are material contradictions in the statements with regard to the lodging of FIR, who lodged the FIR, name of the driver and number of the vehicle came later on; MLR of Maya Devi is not proved on record; there is no medical record of General Hospital, Rewari with regard to the medical examination of injured etc.

In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the well reasoned award, passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit.

The observations recorded hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merits of the criminal case before the learned trial Court.