- (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the order dated 20.9.2011 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City,Jaipur in M.A.C. Case No.1346 of 2009, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of the appellant.
(2.) THE short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-claimant had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident which according to him had occurred on 24.3.2009, when he was going as a pillion rider on his own motorcycle driven by one Om Prakash and when one Pickup bearing registration No.RJ-14-GB-8565 came from the back side and dashed his motorcycle. According to the appellant-claimant, he sustained injuries out of the said vehicular accident. An FIR in respect of the said accident was lodged on 20.4.2009 by the complainant-Om Prakash who was allegedly driving the motorcycle. THE Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition of the appellant on the ground that the appellant had not proved the involvement of the vehicle in question, in the accident. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. The learned counsel Mr. Vinay Mathur appearing for the appellant has vehemently submitted that though there was some delay in lodging the FIR, it could not have been taken as a main ground for rejecting the claim petition of the appellant. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case Ravi vs Badrinarayan and ors (2011 (4) SCC 693). He has further submitted that though Rojnamacha report was not exhibited in the claim petition, the same has been relied upon by the Tribunal for the purpose of contradicting the contents of the FIR. According to the learned counsel, the owner of the vehicle in question has not disputed the accident and therefore the Tribunal had committed an error apparent on the face of record in dismissing the claim petition. At the outset, it may be stated that though as per the settled legal position, the delay in lodging FIR cannot be the ground of dismissing the claim case, as observed by the Apex court in the case of Ravi vs Badrinaryan and ors (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the case of delay, courts are required to examine the evidence with a closure scrutiny and in doing so the contents of FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the Tribunal has observed that though the alleged accident was reported in the Police Station on 20.4.2009, by the complainant Om Prakash, there were contradictions in the number of vehicle involved and in the name of person who lodged the FIR and one whose name appeared in Rojnamacha. In the Rojnamacha report, information about the accident was of dated 22.3.2009 whereas in the FIR accident was reported to have taken place on 24.3.2009. It was sought to be submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Rojnamacha report was not exhibited before the Tribunal and therefore could not have been replied upon. However, there is no substance in the said submission inasmuch as the said Rojnamacha report was produced by the appellant claimant himself for being relied upon and Tribunal has relied upon the same observing that the said document being the Rojnamacha was a public document. The said document namely Rojnamcha report having been relied upon by the claimant himself it does not lie in the mouth of claimant to say that the said document should not have relied upon by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has closely scrutinized the contents of the said FIR for the purpose of satisfying itself whether the vehicle in question was involved or not and after having found number of contradictions in the FIR as well as in the Rojnamacha report, the Tribunal held that the appellant-claimant had failed to establish the involvement of the vehicle in question. There being no illegality or perversity in the said award made by the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition, this court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed in limine.;