BHANWARLAL VERMA Vs. SHARAD THOLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the afternoon of 14.12.1988, when the appellant was going from Panch Batti Circle of Ajmeri Gate, on M.I. Road, one of the busiest roads of Jaipur, without any signal the respondent's car hit the appellant from the back. Consequently, not only was the scooter damaged, but more importantly the appellant suffered a fracture of his hip bone. Appellant had to undergo an operation whereby a steel rod was inserted in his hip joint. According to the appellant, he stayed in SMS Hospital at Jaipur for five days. Subsequently, because the doctors of the hospital were on strike, therefore, he was shifted to the Sharma Nursing Home where he stayed for almost 80 days. Consequently, he filed a claim petition before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur for a compensation of Rs. 1,03,305.

(2.) Since the driver and owner did not appear before the Tribunal, therefore, the Tribunal proceeded ex parte against them. The insurance company filed its written statement wherein it admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with them, but denied the factum of the accident. The learned Tribunal framed 6 issues. In order to prove its case, the appellant examined four witnesses. But the respondents did not examine any witness from their side. After hearing both the parties, vide award dated 2.6.1995 the learned Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal before us.

(3.) Mr. Mahendra Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim petition on the ground that the F.I.R. was lodged after an inordinate delay of one and a half months. It has further rejected the claim petition on the ground that although the police filed a negative final report, the appellant did not challenge the same before the criminal court. Thus, according to him the learned Tribunal has erred in basing its logic on the outcome of the criminal case. Moreover, according to him the testimony of the injured is corroborated by the site plan, Exh. 6, recovery memo of the scooter, Exh. 7 and by the recovery memo of the car, Exh. 9. Hence, there is both oral and documentary evidence to establish the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, learned Tribunal has ignored the evidence, which was readily available on record.