- (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 28.2.2011 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.7 in M.A.C. Case No. 214 of 2009 by which the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of the appellant.
(2.) IN the instant case, the appellant-claimant had filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him, as a result of the accident occurred on 3.4.2008, when he was walking down on the street and one motorcycle hit him. The FIR in respect of the said accident was lodged at Police Station, Jhotwara which was registered as FIR No. 551 of 2008 on 13.7.2008. According to the appellant, since he was injured and admitted in the hospital till 9.4.2008, there was delay in filing the complaint. It is also the case of the appellant that the concerned police station had refused to register the FIR and therefore the appellant had filed the private complaint before the court of ACJM, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in which the court had directed the police investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record dismissed the said claim of the appellant- claimant vide the impugned award dated 28.2.2011, against which the present appeal has been filed. It has been sought to be submitted by learned counsel Mr. Vinay Mathur for the appellant that the Tribunal has mis-appreciated the evidence on record and drawn inferences and surmises to hold that there was collusion between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle in question. He further submitted that merely there was delay in filing the complaint, that factor should not adversely affect the case of the appellant, the Motor Vehicles Act being a benevolent legislation. He further submitted that the owner was issued notice under section 133 of the said Act however he had not denied the claim of the appellant and therefore it should be presumed that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident. At the outset, it is required to be stated that though the accident had occurred on 3.4.2008, the FIR was registered on 13.7.2008. The said FIR was lodged after the concerned court in which appellant had filed complainant in question had directed investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is also pertinent to note that in the deposition before the court, the appellant had stated that at the time of accident, one Mahaveer was there with him and when he was taken to the hospital, the said Mahaveer and one Tejaram had accompanied him. He had also admitted that he had not seen the number of the vehicle and he came to know subsequently through the said Mahaveer and Tejaram. Now, the said Mahaveer and Tejaram have not been examined by the appellant before the Tribunal to prove the contents of the complaint and more particularly the involvement of motorcycle in question. The Tribunal has also observed that the said Mahaveer was not shown as the eye witness in the chargesheet submitted in the case. Under the circumstances, even if the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that mere delay in filing FIR should not adversely affect the case of the appellant is accepted, then also, the appellant is required to discharge his burden by leading cogent evidence and prove the involvement of the vehicle in question. In the instance case, the Tribunal has categorically observed that the appellant did not see the number of the vehicle in question and the appellant had also not examined the concerned eye witnesses from whom he had come to know about the involvement of the vehicle, and therefore the appellant had failed to prove that he had sustained injuries as a result of the accident caused by the use of the motorcycle in question. The Tribunal has also categorically observed that the case appears to be of collusion between claimant and the owner, and therefore also the version of appellant was not found trustworthy. The Tribunal after closely scrutinizing the evidence on record has dismissed the claim petition by the impugned order which does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. In that view of the matter, the appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;