Ramphal vs Baljit Singh and Another

M. Jeyapaul, J.—The injured-claimant Ramphal has preferred the present appeal challenging the dismissal of his claim petition by the Tribunal. The injured Ramphal has contended in the claim petition that on 25.1.2007, at about 9.30 p.m. when he proceeded on his motorcycle, a Tata Indica Car bearing registration No. HR06-M-3642 driven by 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn came from the side of Sanjay Chowk, Panipat and directly hit the motorcycle of the claimant and as a result of which he fell down and received multiple grievous injuries on various parts of his body. It has been alleged that the accident took place only due to the sole negligence of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent who is the owner and driver of the Tata Indica Car disputed the accident in the written statement filed by him. The 2nd respondent raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the claim petition. That apart, it was alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

The only point that arises for determination in the appeal is whether the 1st respondent on account of his rash and negligent driving caused the accident.

The accident had taken place on 25.1.2007, but the first information report was registered only on 30.3.2007. There was a delay of 2 months and 5 days in registering the first information report. The Tribunal primarily relied upon the delay in registering the first information report and held that the accident itself was not established by the injured-claimant.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently submit that the Tribunal did not properly advert to Exhibit P-52, ruqqa which was sent to the police by PW 2 Dr. Purshotam Singh, Neurosurgeon attached to Hydrabadi Hospital, Panipat. It is his further submission that the evidence on record that the injured-claimant was unconscious throughout was not properly considered by the Tribunal. The delay in lodging the first information report cannot be a reason to reject the claim holding that the accident was not established, it is further submitted by him.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the Tribunal has rightly come to a decision as there was a whopping delay of 2 months and 5 days in registering the first information report.

In my considered view, the delay in lodging the first information report was properly explained by the claimant. PW 2 Dr. Purshotam Singh, Neurosurgeon attached to Hydrabadi Hospital, Panipat has spoken to the effect that the claimant was unconscious right from 25.1.2007 to 2.2.2007, during which period the injured took treatment under him. There is evidence to show that on 2.2.2007, the injured-claimant was shifted to Prem Hospital wherein the injured-claimant took treatment under PW 7 Dr. Sanjay Aggarwal. PW 7 has deposed that the injured was brought to his hospital on 2.2.2007 in an unconscious condition. It is found that the injured was discharged from the hospital after treatment on 15.2.2007.

Of course, the claimant would have approached the police after he was discharged from the hospital on 15.2.2007, for the purpose of setting the criminal law in motion, but it is found that he pursued his treatment even thereafter for the grievous injuries he has sustained. At any rate Ex. P52, ruqqa sent by PW 2 Dr. Purshotam Singh, Neurosurgeon to the police station cannot be ignored by the Court. On a careful perusal of Ex. P52, it is found that on the date of accident itself a ruqqa was sent by PW 2 Dr. Purshotam Singh about the accident and the injuries sustained by the victim who happened to take treatment under him in the hospital. For the reasons best known the police had not woken up to approach the relatives of the injured or the eye witness who took the injured to the hospital for treatment for the purpose of recording the first information report. For the irresponsible attitude of the police, the innocent claimant who sustained injuries in the accident cannot be penalized.

If at all there was no accident as contended by the respondents, the ruqqa (Ex. P52) would not have come on record. There was no reason for PW 2 Dr. Pushotam Singh to send such a ruqqa in case there was no accident at all.

The claimant also has examined PW 3 Balwant Rai, Ahlmad attached to the Court of CJM, Panipat to establish that a charge-sheet was laid as against the 1st respondent before the said Court after completion of the investigation. It would prima facie disclose that the investigating official was convinced that a case was made out for rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent.

It is true that one Satbir, a passer-by who happened to witness the occurrence and took the injured to the hospital was not examined by the injured-claimant. In my considered view, when the injured person has been examined before the Court and has passed the test of credibility, the question of examining any other eye witness to the accident does not arise for consideration. The evidence of the injured witness is completely corroborated by the ruqqa Ex. P52, the treatment records produced by him and the final report filed by the investigating official u/s 173 Cr.P.C.

The evidence of the injured witness would go to establish that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent who faces the criminal prosecution. In view of the above, I hold that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. It has been established by the 1st respondent that the vehicle was duly insured under Ex. R-2 and the driver also had a valid driving licence under Ex. P59. Though the 1st respondent is liable to pay the compensation, the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the vehicle stepping into the shoes of 1st respondent shall ultimately pay the compensation.

It appears that the Tribunal has not assessed the quantum of compensation. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fixing the quantum of compensation alone. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.