Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1248 (RAJ)

Mahadev Prasad v. Vijay Pal Jagan

2006-04-19

PANNA CHAND JAIN

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has challenged the impugned award dated 16.5.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal') whereby it has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant ostensibly on the ground that there is a delay of nine days in lodging of the FIR, and that there is animosity between the claimant and the driver of the offending vehicle. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.10.2000 when the appellant was coming back to his village Nayabas and was walking on the road, from the opposite direction a motorcycle, bearing Registration No. RJ-14I3-M-5297, driven by the respondent No. 1, Vijay Pal, in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the appellant. Consequently, the appellant suffered an injury on the left side of ribs as well as an injury on the nose. He had further suffered eighteen scratches on his nose. Due to the accident, his left leg was also fractured. He was hospitalised for nine days and it is after his discharge that the FIR had been lodged. In order to get some compensation for the said accident, the claimant had filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. However, as stated above the learned Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the said claim petition. Hence, this appeal before us. 3. Mr. Rakesh Bhargava, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has argued that according to the reply submitted to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act'), the owner of the offending vehicle, respondent No. 2, had clearly admitted the factum of the accident. The said reply was submitted as Ex. 9 before the learned Tribunal. According to the learned Counsel, once the factum of accident is admitted, there is no reason for the learned Tribunal to disbelieve the case of the appellant. 4. On the other hand Mr. L.N. Boss, the learned Counsel for the respondents, has argued that there is no evidence on record to show that such an admission was made voluntarily. The owner of the offending vehicle had admitted the factum of the accident in the police station. He has also emphasised on the fact that there is a delay of nine days in lodging of the FIR. 5. The owner of the offending vehicle had admitted the factum of the accident in the police station. He has also emphasised on the fact that there is a delay of nine days in lodging of the FIR. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned award. 6. According to the injured himself, who is the best witness in this case, the accident had taken place as described by him. According to the reply submitted to the notice under Section 133 of the Act, the owner of the offending vehicle has admitted the factum of accident in unequivocal terms. Once such an admission is made by the owner, and once his admission was readily available before the learned Tribunal, it is rather surprising that the learned Tribunal has overlooked the documentary evidence. The statement of the claimant is further corroborated by Ex. 1, the permanent disability certificate, Ex. 3, the injury report, Ex. 4, the X-ray report. Hence, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to corroborate the statement of the injured claimant. It is rather surprising that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in a holistic manner. Instead, it has taken a pedantic view of the evidence and has rejected the claim petition on the ground that according to D.W. 1, there was some animosity between the claimant and the driver of the offending vehicle. It also rejected the claim petition ostensibly on the ground that a material witness has not been examined by the claimant. Once the injured himself has stated about the accident, there was no reason for him to duplicate the evidence by examining any other witness, it is, indeed, a settled principle of law that it is not the quantity of witnesses, which is material, it is the quality of the evidence, which is important. Considering the fact that there was ample direct and circumstantial evidence before the learned Tribunal, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 16.5.2003 and to remand the case back to the learned Tribunal for reassessing the entire evidence and to pass a just and reasonable award in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.Order accordingly. *******