Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 100 (RAJ)

Subit Kumar Jain v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

2012-01-09

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 31st May, 2011, whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur dismissed the claim petition of the appellant-claimant Subit Kumar. 2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts of the case are that on 12th November, 2007 at about 8.30 PM, the appellant Subit Kumar was going on motor cycle No. RJ 01-15-0405 and the moment he reached opposite Rathi Hospital situated on Ajmer-Jaipur Road, one Car bearing Registration No. RJ 01 CA 2639 came from back and the driver of the Car while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, hit from his back, as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries on his person. The learned Tribunal found that the Car No. RJ 01 CA 2639 was not involved in the accident and thus, dismissed the claim petition. 3. Aggrieved with the judgment of the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and carefully scanned the impugned judgment, it is noticed that the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the FIR of the accident was lodged after an inordinate delay of 5 days. The learned Tribunal also found that when the injured was admitted in the hospital, he did not disclose the fact to the Doctor as to how did he receive the injuries on his person. Learned Tribunal observed that had the injured sustained injuries on account of an accident having caused by the driver of the Car, the injured would have mentioned this fact to the Doctor and the Doctor would have incorporated in the register, but the same was not found to have been mentioned by the injured. Apart that the family members were also present in the hospital with the injured, but none of them lodged the report with the police, whereas the police station was not much at far from the scene of occurrence. The learned Tribunal found so many discrepancies emerging in the statement of the witnesses, which were not tallying with the discussion of the site of occurrence. The car was got mechanically examined by the investigating officer and it was found that there was no mark of any accident on the front part of the car. The learned Tribunal found so many discrepancies emerging in the statement of the witnesses, which were not tallying with the discussion of the site of occurrence. The car was got mechanically examined by the investigating officer and it was found that there was no mark of any accident on the front part of the car. The car is alleged to have hit at the back of the motor cycle from the front part of the car, but neither any mark of accident was found on the rear part of the motor cycle nor on the front part of the car. All these facts evinced that the accident did not take place because of involvement of the car driver. The learned Tribunal found that neither the car was involved in the accident nor the motor cycle was found to have been hit by any vehicle at the rear part of the motor-cycle. The learned Tribunal is found to have discussed all these facts and circumstances ad-longum in the impugned judgment and finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal is found to be perfectly just and proper, which suffers from no infirmity. E Converso, the appeal is found to be totally devoid of any substance and the same deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 5. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed accordingly.