Ram Chander vs Ramesh And Others

Avneesh Jhingan, J

The award dated 29.04.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani has been assailed by Ram Chander being aggrieved of dismissal of the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for brevity 'the Act'].

The driver of three-wheeler bearing registration No. HR- 46-0454 [hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle'] and owner of the offending vehicle have been arrayed as respondents No.1 and 2 in appeal. National Insurance Company Ltd. was impleaded as respondent before the Tribunal but was deleted from the array of parties by the Tribunal vide order dated 25.02.2001 as the offending vehicle was not insured at the time of accident. The appeal is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 563 days in filing the present appeal.

The record of this appeal was burnt and from the salvaged record of the partially burnt cases, the same was reconstructed subject to all just exceptions and further verification.

On 27.09.2017, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the delay had already been condoned vide order dated 28.08.2006. He was directed to place the copy of order on record as the record of the appeal was burnt. Today he states that copy of order is not available with him and it is only noted on his brief that delay has been condoned and appeal is admitted.

The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that on 27.05.1998, Ram Chander was coming back from village Kheri Boora in the offending vehicle. When the offending vehicle reached near village Bhairvi, the driver of the offending vehicle took it on a KACHA portion in negligent manner, the tyre got burst, the appellant fell on the road and was injured. He was taken to Sahrawat Hospital, Dadri and then to the General Hospital, Bhiwani from where he was taken to PGIMS, Rohtak. FIR No.177 dated 22.06.1998 was registered.

The Tribunal after considering the facts and appreciating the evidence adduced dismissed the claim petition as the claimant failed to prove the involvement as well as rash & negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the paper book and relevant documents including the statement of the appellant before the Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition merely on the fact that there was delay of 27-28 days in lodging the FIR and that the appellant in the cross-examination, admitted that he had falsely implicated the driver of the offending vehicle.

Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the appellant could not withstood the cross-examination and admitted that driver of the offending vehicle was falsely implicated. He further relied upon the order dated 03.02.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Charkhi Dadri in the criminal proceedings with regard to the alleged accident, wherein the case of the prosecution failed as Ramesh Chander (appellant) failed to depose before the Court.

The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant lacks merit. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of the appellant before the Tribunal is reproduced below:-

"It is correct that I have falsely implicated the driver of three wheeler Ramesh Kumar after one month of the accident to the police."

No challenge or corrective measures were taken by the appellant to state that the statement was wrongly recorded before the Tribunal. There is another angle to the controversy. Before the Tribunal, the appellant admitted that the driver was wrongly implicated, the statement is fortified by the fact that he never chose to appear before the Criminal Court as a witness to support case of prosecution.

No shadow can be cast upon the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

The appeal is dismissed. Since the appeal has been decided on merits itself, the question of limitation is left open.qa