New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Malkiat Singh

Anita Chaudhary, J.—This appeal is directed against the award dated 16th January, 1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, who allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,57,200 with interest @ 12% for the injuries suffered by the claimant. The factual matrix; the claimant was going on his motorcycle from his Village Bhat Majra to Ambala City on 6th April, 1994 on its side. He was driving his motorcycle at a normal speed. At about 11.00 a.m. he reached Jansui Head Canal, when a red coloured tractor bearing registration No. HR-01-6074 came from the opposite side and struck against him as it went to the extreme wrong side of the road. He fell down and suffered fracture on his right arm and multiple injuries on the body. The motorcycle was also damaged. The claimant was taken to Dr. V.K. Gupta Hospital, Pehowa from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh on 9th April, 1994.

The claimant had pleaded that he suffered permanent disability up to 80% on account of amputation of his arm. The claimant had pleaded that he was earning Rs. 5,000 by selling milk. A claim of Rs. 10 lacs was laid.

The private respondents admitted that an accident had taken place but pleaded that accident occurred on account of negligence of the claimant. They also pleaded that there was no disability and the claim was exaggerated.

New India Assurance Company pleaded that no accident had taken place and it was a false claim petition to extract compensation. The claim was filed after 31/2 years of the accident and the claimant had fallen from a cycle in a drunken condition and suffered a fracture on the right arm. It was pleaded that he took treatment from Mission Hospital, Pehowa and on account to some infection, he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. It was pleaded that the claimant did not own the motorcycle and the claim was false.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence and allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 5,57,200 along with 12% interest to the claimant.

Aggrieved from the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal disputing the accident as well as their liability. The contention made on behalf of the appellant was that though there was no limitation for filing claim petition but no explanation has come as to why it was filed so late and the reason for not approaching any authority to lodge a report. It was urged that no intimation was sent to the police by the doctor nor any MLR was prepared and they had produced their investigator''s report. It was urged that if the motorcycle had been damaged the claimant would have got it repaired from a mechanic and they should have some evidence supporting the plea and if claims like this claim are admitted, there will be no end and it was a case of no evidence. It was urged that the explanation given by the claimant that the driver was contacting him and offering payment could have been accepted, had he given some details and there is no reason why the claimant did not approach the police and such claims should be dismissed at the threshold.

The argument of the other side was that the claimant had explained that the claim was filed late as the owner and driver had offered compensation but later on failed to pay and the private respondents had admitted that an accident had taken place and there is an admission in the hospital on the same day.

Learned Counsel for the appellant had urged that the treatment record produced by the claimant are on plain paper and the other on letter head and the medical officer did not produce his record and this kind of evidence can be created and the admission in PGI was of 11th April, 1994 and the claimant had to prove that the injuries were suffered in an accident caused by the respondents and mere admission by respondent was not enough as it has been seen that vehicles are procured and such modes are adopted to grab compensation.

The claimant in order to prove his case had stepped into witness box as PW-3. The claimant had stated that there were 2-3 persons on the road when the accident occurred but he did not know their name. He stated that the motorcycle which he was driving was owned by Lakhwinder Singh, who had gone abroad. He stated that he had no bill relating to the medicines he had purchased during the course of treatment at Pehowa as well as PGI, Chandigarh. He stated that Baldev Singh had been assuring him of payment for 11/2 years but later on he refused and thereafter he feel it unnecessary to report the accident to the police. He corrected himself and stated that he had gone to the police but they refused to take down his complaint as it was delayed.

The claimant had examined Dr. V.K. Gupta-PW-2 a private practitioner in Pehowa. He stated that Malkiat Singh had come to his hospital to whom first aid was given and he was advised X-ray. He proved the OPD card Ext. P-3. He stated that he did not maintain any record except outdoor receipts, which were given to the patients. He stated that he did not obtain any signature of patients on the OPD slips. He stated that he did not maintain any register of the patients nor any record regarding fees was taken from them.

The Insurance Company had examined their investigator, who was a retired DSP. He proved his report Ext. R-1. He stated that he recorded the statement of Baldev Singh, who had stated that no accident had taken place with his tractor and the statement was signed by Baldev Singh.

There is no eye-witness to the accident. There is only the self-serving statement made by the claimant. He stated that the tractor struck his motorcycle and he fell down and sustained injuries on the right arm. He did not disclose who took him to the hospital. The record produced by the claimant relating to his treatment is also silent on this aspect. The claimant has concealed material facts and the question is whether the claimant who was badly injured could get up and note the number of the offending tractor. If the claimant had sustained a fracture on the right arm he could not have travelled on his motorcycle. The big question is as to who took him to the hospital? The claimant was unable to explain as to why the matter was not reported to the police. The claimant does not say that he knew the driver. He does not explain as to how he had procured his name and address. He does not even say that the driver had stopped to help him. It is not unusual for the drivers to run away after causing the accident. These are some of the aspects, which have not come out in the statement of the claimant. The explanation offered by the claimant at the trial that the report was not lodged with the police as Baldev Singh had offered money for his treatment is an afterthought. The medical officer did not send any intimation to the police. The claim petition has been filed after three years. The motorcycle must have been repaired but that evidence was also withheld as neither any mechanic was produced nor any bill of repair was produced. The claimant even failed to produce any compromise or writing between him and Baldev Singh.

If the above facts are taken into account, it is found that the claimant had been unable to lead any evidence to prove the involvement of the tractor in the accident which resulted in the injuries to the claimant. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are set aside. The claim petition is dismissed. The appeal is allowed.