SURYA KANT,J - (1.) THIS Appeal has been preferred by the claimant against the award dated 13.1.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, dismissing her claim petition on the ground that she has failed to prove that she sustained injuries in a vehicle accident on 10.11.2005.
(2.) THE case of the appellant-claimant is that on 10.11.2005 at about 2.00 p.m. she along with her husband Deva Singh and daughter Reena had gone to Kedar Hospital, Kurukshetra for taking medicines and while they were standing towards Sector 13 on Pipli-Kurukshetra road for going to village Pindarsi, respondent No. 1 came driving his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner from the side of the new bus stand, Kurukshetra and dashed against the appellant-claimant, as a result of which she fell and sustained multiple injuries. The appellant-claimant was rushed to Soni Hospital, Kurukshetra. Thereafter, FIR No. 466 was got registered on 15.11.2006 at police station City Thanesar, under Sections 279, 337, 338, IPC. The appellant further averred that as a result of the injuries suffered in the accident, she has become permanently disable to the extent of 11 %. On this premise, the appellant-claimant sought a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. In support of the claim petition, the appellant besides herself entering the witness box, examined Dr. Bimla Gori, Orthopaedic Surgeon of Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Government Hospital, Kurukshetra (PW2), Dr. P.K. Soni, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Soni Hospital, Kurukshetra (PW3) and tendered into evidence copy of the FIR (Ex.P5), report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P6) and medical bills (Ex.P7 to Ex.P18). From the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues : 1. Whether the motor vehicles accident took place on 15.11.2005 is an outcome of rash and negligent driving of motor cycle No. HR 61 APQ-Temp. 7783 by Sushil Kumar respondent No. 1 ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the injuries she suffered in the aforesaid accident and if so in what amount ? OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 3 is entitled to repudiate the contract of insurance on the grounds taken by way of preliminary objections and additional pleas ? OPR 4. Relief. While deciding issue No. 1 against the appellant-claimant, the Tribunal has held that no document has been brought on record to prove that Dr. P.K. Soni, sent any intimation to the police regarding admission of the appellant in his hospital on 10.11.2005 nor any police officer from the concerned police station has been examined to prove that intimation of the accident was sent or received without any delay. The Tribunal has drawn an adverse inference against the appellant on account of five days' delay in registration of the FIR, especially when the appellant's husband and daughter were present at the time of accident.
(3.) WHILE deciding issue No. 2, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's plea that she has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 11% and/or that she incurred the expenditure on treatment. The Tribunal has accordingly assessed compensation of Rs. 56,300/- to which the appellant would have been held entitled had the issue No. 1 decided in her favour. However, in view of above the findings on issue No. 1, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition, giving rise to this appeal.;