Prem Singh vs Sanjeev @ Pappu and Ramashankar

S.R. Waghmare, J.—This appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellant Premsingh Bhilala u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 12.09.2005 passed by Additional M.A.C.T., Kukshi, District Dhar; in Claim Case No. 41/2004; whereby the Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the appellant/claimant. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it is necessary to state the relevant facts in a nutshell which are as follows: on 06.12.2003 at about 7:00 pm in the evening the non applicant No. 1 Sanjeev Katare was driving a tractor and non-applicant No. 2 Ramashankar the owner of H.M.T. Tractor bearing registration No. 11-D-0239 and trolley No. MP-11-0240 at Bagh Gufa Ghati when the applicant No. 1 driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently caused the appellant Premsingh to fall from the trolley and one of the wheels of the tractor crushed the left leg of the appellant and he received grievous injuries and he also received injuries on the other part of the body. The FIR to this effect was filed by the appellant/claimant at Police Station Bagh for offence under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC. After the treatment at the Primary Health Centre at Bagh, appellant was referred to the M.Y. Hospital, Indore and he also took proper treatment at District Hospital Barwani and Ashagram and the treatment took place about two months. He was admitted at M.Y. Hospital, Indore for 11 days and suffered a permanent disability. He filed a claim before the M.A.C.T., Kukshi stating that he had incurred expenses of Rs. 5,000/- at M.Y. Hospital, Indore and Rs. 25,000/- at the hospital of Barwani and his left ankle had been fractured and his left foot had been crushed and knee also received injuries and he claimed the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. And since he also suffered loss of income as an agricultural labourer, he earned Rs. 4,500/- per month, besides pain and suffering the total claimed an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The claim was opposed by the respondents and the non applicant No. 1 driver took up the defence that the appellant was intoxicated and had fallen down due to his own negligence and he has received only simple injuries in the accident and the claim was totally false. The FIR was also filed after a period of one month, which was malafide and manipulated, the appellant did not receive any fracture and permanent disability as alleged and did not take any treatment in the hospitals referred. The Tribunal on considering the claim, found that the negligence of driver was not established, besides, it was also denied by the non-applicants that the vehicle was involved in the accident and there was some rivalry between the parties. The brother of the appellant Chainsingh, who was the Up-Sarpanch of village Jaamniyapura and the non-applicants had filed the complainant against him and the entire case was concocted and the Doctor had not been examined and the injuries were also not established. The Tribunal dismissed the claim as not proved and hence, the present appeal filed by the claimant/appellant.

Learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant has vehemently urged the fact that there was sufficient evidence on record to indicate that the appellant had received injuries on the ankle and left leg and the finger was also crushed, the entire responsibility was that non-applicants No. 1 & 2. Besides, there was evidence available on record that the appellant had been admitted at M.Y. Hospital, Indore for 11 days and referring to the M.L.C. (Ex. A-4), Counsel submitted that in M.L.C. it was categorically mentioned that the accident had occurred by the tractor and appellant had been referred to M.Y. Hospital, Indore, for crush injuries of sole and ankle joint. Counsel submitted that the X-ray report (Ex. A-32) indicated that the appellant suffered permanent disability in the left leg amounting 2.57% and he was unable to sit and carry on his daily chores and he was out of the work more than five months. The learned M.A.C.T. has also failed to consider the X-Ray report, besides there were other documents to establish that the accident had taken place and that the appellant was unable to walk and out of work. He earned Rs. 4,500/- per month as an agricultural labourer.

Learned Counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the appellant/claimant and fully justified the impugned judgment of dismissal of the claim. Counsel submitted that first of all FIR was delayed more than one and half month and the documents are concocted. Moreover the non-applicant No. 1 driver has completely denied the accident having taken place. He also denied that he was driving the said vehicle at the time of the accident. The M.L.C. (Ex. A-4) clearly established that the injuries on the left leg has occurred by hard and blunt object. Moreover Counsel contended that Dr. Awadhesh Swarnkar had not been examined and categorically stated that accordingly to X-ray report (Ex. A-32) there is a fracture of fourth metacarpal and left end tibia bone and patient suffered crush injury in left ankle foot hence the doctor had treated him and told that the appellant had met with road accident and taken treatment at M.Y. Hospital, Indore. Counsel submitted that non applicant No. 2, who is the owner of the vehicle has also denied the accident having taken place by the alleged vehicle and the appellant had to fail to establish the factum of the accident itself. Moreover Counsel submitted that the malafides could not be brushed aside regarding the rivalry between the parties. Considering the evidence on record, Counsel urged that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal.

On considering the above submissions, impugned judgment and the evidence available on record, I find that the appellant has miserably failed to establish his claim. The FIR was delayed by more than one and half month and delay has not been properly explained, the enmity between the parties has also been established and the fact that the report may have been filed to implicate the non-applicants. The defence documents established that there was a case before the S.D.M., Kukshi in which the brother of the appellant as Up-Sarpanch has been implicated by the non-applicants. Besides Dr. Shinde, who has primarily treated the appellant has not been examined. The denial by the driver/non-applicant No. 1 has also not been controverted and I find that no error can be found in the inference drawn by the Tribunal. The appellant had failed to establish his claim that the accident occurred by the said vehicle and the permanent disability has not been properly established and the medical bills also indicate inadequate amount and I find no hesitation in upholding the judgment of dismissal passed by the Trial Court. The appeal is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed as such.