Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 809 (BOM)

Vrinda w/o Sriniwas Padhe v. Shrawanti @ Shavanti w/o Shripal Mankar

2012-04-17

M.N.GILANI

body2012
Judgment This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 14/1/1998 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.61/1993. 2. On 3/10/1988 at about 8.30 p.m. the appellant was riding Luna and proceeding by North Ambazari Road. One jeep passing by the same road gave dash to Luna. The appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries resulting into fracture to left thigh and femur bone. She was required to be hospitalized and incur huge expenses. She also could not attend her job for a considerable period of six months. Therefore, under different heads, she claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. The claim was resisted by the owner of offending vehicle as well as by the insurance company. One of the grounds of defence was, vehicle bearing Registration No.MVH/66 was not involved in accident. 4. The appellant examined herself in addition to examining Shripad Mankar, her husband. The learned Tribunal did not agree with the case of the claimants that the jeep bearing Registration No.MVH/66 was involved in the accident. Merely on this ground, the claim has been rejected. Ms U.R. Tanna, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the claim on the ground that the jeep bearing Registration No.MVH/66 was not involved in accident. She took me through the pleadings and the evidence brought on the record to buttress her contention. 5. None is present for the respondents. 6. Admittedly, Shripad Mankar (C.W.2) do not know the registration number of the offending vehicle. On 3/10/1988, the accident occurred. No first information report was lodged till 7/10/1988. Whatever the report, which was lodged on 7/10/1988, is not placed on record. On 26th October, 1988 Shripad Mankar (C.W.2) lodged report with the police. The contents of it (Exh.27) being relevant and decisive, are reproduced hereunder: "In further to my report dated 7/10/1988, in regard to the accident to my wife Dr. (Mrs.) Vrinda Padhye who was knocked down and thrown from her luna and sustained fracture of femur bone. I have now to state as under : 1) the jeep involved and which dashed the luna ridden by my wife bare regn. No.MVH66. It is a mahindra jeep probably of brown colour three persons were sitting and the jeep being driven by a boy probably of 26 years of age and not having a license. I have now to state as under : 1) the jeep involved and which dashed the luna ridden by my wife bare regn. No.MVH66. It is a mahindra jeep probably of brown colour three persons were sitting and the jeep being driven by a boy probably of 26 years of age and not having a license. 2) this information about the jeep was given to me by Shri Sanjay Kewalram Samarth Pragati Dhanya Bhandar, Kirana shop plot no.125 Lendra park Ramdaspeth Nagpur, who along with his friend happened to passby the road where the accident took place, and he could see the number. 3) I have to request you to kindly investigate into the matter and oblige." 7. What is discernible from the above is that Shripad Mankar (C.W.2) had no personal knowledge about the vehicle involved in an accident. He got this information from one Sanjay Samarth. Said Sanjay Samarth was not examined. It is also not known as to what type of investigation police had carried out after registering the offence. Further, the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in discarding the contents in "AA Form" which was issued on 9/10/1997 i.e. after 11 years of incident. In that view of the matter, whatever evidence adduced before the learned Tribunal was wholly insufficient to show that the vehicle bearing Registration No.MVH/66 was involved in an accident. I, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. 8. Appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.