Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 299 (RAJ)

Ramdayal v. Ahmad Ali

2016-02-19

VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. 1. The present appeal projects a challenge to the judgment and order dated 5.10.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh Distt. Ajmer; declining the claim petition instituted by the claimant appellant. 2. Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts for adjudication are that claimant-appellant instituted a claim petition for compensation for injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident on 14.12.2009, as a consequence of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Jeep. It is pleaded fact of the claimant that he sustained simple as well as grievous injuries and multiple fractures in the road traffic accident. He was taken to Mittal Hospital. On his discharge after treatment on 27.12.2009, he went for his X-ray examination. The FIR of the accident was lodged on 4.1.2010. 3. Learned counsel for the claimant, Mr. Akshat Choudhary, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the appeal, vehemently argued that the Tribunal committed gross illegality in declining the claim petition of the appellant only on the ground of 20 days delay in lodging of the FIR. According to learned counsel soon after the accident on 14.12.2009, he was treated at Mittal Hospital upto 27.12.2009. However, the First Information Report of the accident was lodged by his brother on 4.1.2010. Learned counsel has relied upon the opinion of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in the case of Kunduru Venkat Reddy Vs. Kondapally Upender Reddy & Ors., 2014 ACJ 1419, while contending that there can be a variety of reasons for delay in lodging the FIR and the claim petition should not be dismissed on that count. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the impugned judgment and order dated 5.10.2015 as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the submissions at Bar. 5. There cannot be any dispute on the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & Ors., 2011 R.A.R. 81 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that claim petition should not be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the FIR so also the fact that there may be variety of reasons for not lodging the FIR immediately after the accident. But every case is to be examined in the backdrop of the contextual facts. 6. But every case is to be examined in the backdrop of the contextual facts. 6. The Tribunal while considering the evidence and materials available on record has specifically arrived at the conclusion that the claimant appellant in his cross-examination admitted the fact that FIR was lodged after 20 days. He also admitted the fact that the injury report was not prepared in accordance with the information furnished by him of the accident. He did not dispute the fact that the driver of the vehicle Ahmed Ali is a resident of his village. The appellant also admitted the fact that he was not admitted to Government Hospital at Kishangarh. The other witnesses namely; Rameshwar, Bajrang and Goverdhan are the residents of his village. 7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel also produced the documents/medical history, recorded during the course of treatment at Mittal Hospital from where it is reflected that the claimant appellant was accompanied by an attendant. The claimant left the hospital with his head injury bleeding for a better treatment elsewhere. Even after discharge from the Mittal Hospital on 27.12.2009, the claimant-appellant did not report the accident to the Governmental Enforcement Agency whereas according to him he went to Government Hospital for X-ray and medical examination. There is not even a whisper for the delay all along since the accident occurred on 14.12.2009. It is not the case of the claimant appellant that he was seriously injured and was admitted as an indoor patient. To the contrary, the documents which were produced during the course of arguments from the Mittal Hospital reflected a different story. The Tribunal on proper analysis of pleadings and appreciation of evidence rightly declined the claim petition against the non appellants. 8. In the case of Ravi (supra), the factual matrix as recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads thus: 5. Facts shorn of unnecessary details are as under: On 7.10.2001, at about 8.30 A.M., Ravi was attending to his call of nature, just in front of his house. There appears to be a 20' wide kutcha road in front of the said house. At that time, Respondent No. 1, Badrinarayan, was reversing truck bearing Registration No. RJP-1008. Since there was no conductor, probably, he was not able to notice that Ravi was sitting on the side of the road, thus while reversing the vehicle rashly and negligently, it hit him from behind. At that time, Respondent No. 1, Badrinarayan, was reversing truck bearing Registration No. RJP-1008. Since there was no conductor, probably, he was not able to notice that Ravi was sitting on the side of the road, thus while reversing the vehicle rashly and negligently, it hit him from behind. The said accident was witnessed by AW 1-Suresh Kumar, father of the victim and AW 2, Hari Narayan. Soon after the accident, both of them took Ravi to the hospital for treatment. Thus, they were not in a position to lodge the FIR immediately. Even though police had come to the hospital to record FIR but it could not be recorded on account of mental agony and stress through which AW 1-Suresh Kumar was passing. Obviously at that point of time, he was more concerned to get the medical treatment for his son rather than lodging FIR. Being a common man, oblivious of the niceties of law, he did not deem it necessary to lodge the FIR immediately. Statements of Hari Narayan, Suresh Kumar, Asif Khan and Ravi were recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. On notice being issued under Section 133 of the M.V. Act, the owner of the vehicle submitted the following reply: It is submitted that as per the registration I am owner of truck No. RJP-1008. On 7.10.2001 and at the time of the accident, my truck was being driven by the driver Badri Narayan S/o. Sh. Ram Nath Cast, Brahmin, Age 45 years R/o. Purana Ghat, opposite Khaniya Dayal Hospital, Police Station - Transport Nagar, Jaipur. I was informed about the said accident on phone on the very same day. Sd/- (Prahlad Singh) Dated: 16.3.2002." 9. From a glance of the facts, it is evident that in the case of Ravi (supra) even though the police had come to the Hospital to record the FIR but it could not be recorded on account of mental agony and distress of the father of the injured. AW-1 Ramdayal, the owner of the vehicle in response to claim petition, in his reply, admitted the factum of accident before the Tribunal as the truck was driven by driver Badri Narain who informed him of the accident on phone on the very same day. AW-1 Ramdayal, the owner of the vehicle in response to claim petition, in his reply, admitted the factum of accident before the Tribunal as the truck was driven by driver Badri Narain who informed him of the accident on phone on the very same day. Thus, it was in the backdrop of those singular facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court propounded the principle that mere delay in lodging the FIR would not defeat the claim petition instituted. 10. In the case of Kunduru Venkat Reddy (supra), what has been observed is that the purpose of lodging of FIR is primarily to ensure the police to investigate the criminal offence; lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be ground for rejecting the claim petition. It has been further observed that the delay in lodging the FIR should not be treated as fatal for there may be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed complaint. But this delay must be explained by the claimant satisfactorily with cogent and convincing reasons. 11. With reference to recovery of compensation under 'no fault liability' from the claimant, learned counsel has relied upon the opinion of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Muthari Menna & Ors. Vs. Kishan Lal Meena & Ors., 2013 R.A.R. 26 (Raj.) wherein relying upon the opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in Indira Devi & Ors. Vs. Bagada Ram & Anr., 2010 ACJ 2451 , the order of refund of interim compensation was set aside. 12. In the case of Indira Devi (supra), the deceased while riding on a motor-cycle dashed into the rear of the truck that was heading in the same direction as the motor-cycle. Thus, it was in those singular facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the refund of compensation bad explaining the principle of "no fault liability". 13. In the instant case at hand the very involvement of the vehicle has been ruled out. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the opinion referred to and relied upon, is of no help to the claimant-appellant. 14. 13. In the instant case at hand the very involvement of the vehicle has been ruled out. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the opinion referred to and relied upon, is of no help to the claimant-appellant. 14. For the reasons and discussion hereinabove and in view of the facts of the instant case at hand, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and order made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarhbas, Distt. Ajmer. 15. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 16. Stay application stands closed.