- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 07.07.2009, passed by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the claim petition in toto, the claimant-appellant has approached this Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the claimant-appellant, being a minor, had filed a claim petition through his father under Section 166 of M.V. Act. According to the claimant, on 30.09.2004, Ratan Singh and Smt. Hiri, were travelling on a motorcycle and were carrying the claimant, Balveer with them. While they were riding on the motorcycle, a motorcycle, bearing registration No.RJ-01/P-0992, which was being driven by Bablu @ Vijay Singh, in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit the motorcycle. Consequently, all the three passengers, namely Smt. Hiri, Ratan Singh and the appellant suffered grievous injuries. THErefore, a claim petition was filed by them individually. In order to buttress their case, Smt. Hiri and Ratan Singh were examined as witnesses, but no documents were submitted by them. THE respondents-non-claimants neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. Naveen Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently, contended that the learned Tribunal has overlooked the fact that the Parcha Bayan recorded by the Police was recorded by themselves without taking down the statement of Smt. Hiri and Ratan Singh. Therefore, a doubt has been created about the veracity of the Parcha Bayan. Secondly, too much of emphasis has been given to the fact that the FIR was lodged seven days after the alleged incident. According to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal should have considered the testimony of the claimants. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order. It is, indeed, trite to state that there is presumption of law that any action done by a public servant is done strictly in accordance with the requirement of law. A police personnel does not record a statement of an injured person until and unless the said statement is so given. Moreover, there is not an iota of evidence to show that the Police personnels were ill-disposed towards the claimants so as to record a false Parcha Bayan. Most importantly, the accident occurred on 30.09.2004 and the Parcha Bayan was recorded by the Police on the next day. Thus, the Parcha Bayan was the first statement which revealed the actual story of the accident. According to Parcha Bayan of Smt. Hiri and Ratan Singh, which bore their signature and thumb impression, the injury was caused not because of an accident with a vehicle, but because their motorcycle had slipped. It is only seven days after the alleged accident that the FIR was lodged. Thus, clearly within a period of seven days, the story had been changed by the claimants, from a mere slip of the motorcycle to a vehicular accident having occurred. It is, indeed, trite to state that the version given by the claimants immediately after the accident is deemed to be the true version as it is to early for the claimants to weave a story. Thus, the version given by them in Parcha Bayan has readily been believed by the learned Tribunal. In catena of cases, both the Apex Court as well as this court have held that inordinate delay in the lodging of a FIR should alert the learned Tribunal about the veracity and authenticity of the story narrated by the claimant. In the present case, the delay of seven days has not been explained by the claimants. Thus, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in concluding that delay of seven days period was sufficient time for the claimants to fabricate a false case. Hence, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in dismissing the claim petition. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant has been honest enough before this court that in another appeal, arising out of the same impugned award, namely S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1003/2010, vide judgment dated 28.7.2010, this Court has already upheld the impugned award. Thus, this case is also covered by the said judgment.
(3.) HENCE, this appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.;