The High Court Bench dismissed the appeal challenging the Tribunal's award that rejected the appellant's motor accident compensation claim. The court upheld the Tribunal's rejection due to failure to prove hospital admission details, nature of injuries, and inconsistencies regarding the incident and FIR delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 3)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1500/2007
Rajendra Kumar Bhaskar S/o Shri Man Singh Bhaskar, Age 44 years, R/o Hotel Bhaskar, S-1, Lakhanpuri, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
----Claimant/Appellant
Versus
----Non-Claimants/Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. K.N. Tiwari
For Respondent no.3 : Mr. Virendra Saraswat
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Order
19/07/2018
Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 9.2.2007 passed by the Tribunal, whereby, claim petition filed by the appellant, was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant. Appellant had been successful in proving his case.
Learned counsel for respondent no.3, has opposed the appeal.
Appellant had filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor-vehicle accident which had occurred on 6.9.2002.
It was the case of the claimant that on 6.9.2002, he was traveling in Maruti Zen bearing registration No. RJ-14-1C-950 alongwith Sushil Pareek. The vehicle was being driven by Sushil Pareek in a rash and negligent manner and had struck against a
(2 of 3 )
tree by the side of the road. Hence, appellant had suffered serious injuries on account of the accident.
On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal had framed issue no.1 to the effect, as to whether appellant had suffered injuries in the accident-in-question due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruti Zen bearing registration No. RJ-141C-950.
In order to prove issue no.1, appellant himself appeared in the witness box as AW-1 and deposed as per his case. However, Tribunal while deciding issue no.1 against the appellant has taken in consideration the fact that it was the case of the appellant that he was admitted in Jaipur hospital for treatment for four days after the accident. However, appellant had failed to prove on record the document showing his admission in Jaipur hospital on the day of accident.
It has been further noticed by the Tribunal that as per Exhibit-15, appellant had remained admitted in the hospital for five days from 7.9.2002 to 11.9.2002 but the said medical record was not available on the file. Hence, the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant as per initial medical examination report immediately after the accident were not proved on record. It has been further noticed by the Tribunal that it was the case of the appellant that he was traveling in the offending car driven by Sushil Pareek at the time of the accident. However, appellant was removed to the hospital by some bank employee and not by Sushil Pareek who was allegedly driving the car at the time of the accident.
Sushila wife of the appellant was impleaded as the owner of the vehicle-in-question by the appellant at the time of the filing of
(3 of 3 )
the claim petition. Although, Sushila was not the registered owner of the offending vehicle but the insurance policy with regard to the offending vehicle had been issued in favour of the wife of the appellant.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the delay in lodging the FIR also gains significance.
In the facts of the present case, the reasons given by the Tribunal while deciding issue no.1 & 2 against the appellant are sound reasons and call for no interference.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
Mohita/3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appellant's claim for compensation due to lack of proof regarding hospital admission and nature of injuries.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR warrants dismissal of the claim.
Whether the Appellate Court should interfere with the Tribunal's findings on issue no.1 and no.2.
Rajendra Kumar Bhaskar
Ramkumar Agarwal
Sushila Agarwal
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
SABINA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
