Allahabad High Court
Ram Lal vs Dr. Kaushar @ Saraf Imtiyaz & Anr. on 6 July, 2017
Bench: Devendra Kumar Arora, Sheo Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. 17
F.A.F.O. No. 497 of 2017
Ram Lal ... Appellant
Versus
Dr Kaushar @ Saraf Imtiyaz and another ... Respondents
-----------
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora J.
Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I J.
Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment impugned.
This FAFO under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.3.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ADJ, Sitapur passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 333 of 2016.
It is said that on 28.5.2016 Ram Lal-claimant was going back to his house from village Mubarakpur with Icre-cream cart after selling Ice-cream and when he reached near the grave-yard in the vicinity of PS Khairabad, then a bullet motorcycle bearing no. UP 34F-3560, which was being driven by Dr Kausar and was coming from the back, hit him causing fracture in his right hand and grievous injuries in his head and hand. On being informed by the peoples standing nearby his family members and police reached at the place of occurrence. It is alleged that on the saying of Dr Kausar, he went to his clinic. As he was not satisfied by the treatment, he asked for his treatment by some other doctor on which Dr Kausar became annoyed and refused to treat him. In these circumstances, he lodged the FIR on 6.6.2016 at PS Khairabad and got his injuries medically examined at Primary Health Centre, Khairabad. Thereafter he got his leg operated at Pragati Nursing Home. After recuperating, the appellant filed a claim petition for awarding a sum of Rupees seven lac in all.
The opposite party no.1-Dr Kausar seriously contested the claim by filing a written statement and denied the accident. He categorically mentioned that on 29.5.2016, he refused to treat one injured person, who came to his clinic for treatment and as such he was threatened.
The Tribunal after considering the pleading, framed following issues:-
1. Whether the alleged incident took place on 28.5.2016 at about 9 PM at Gihar graveyard near Biswa-Khairabad road, PS Khairabad,District Sitapur when the claimant was returning with his ice-cream cart, he was hit by Bullet Motorcycle no. UP 34 AF 3560 from the back which was being driven negligently and carelessly as a consequence claimant received grievous injuries?
2. Whether on the alleged date of accident, the driver of bullet motorcycle no. UP 34AF 3560 was having valid licence?
3. Whether on the alleged date of accident the bullet motorcycle no. UP 34AF 3560 was insured with National Insurance Co. Limited [ respondent no.2] and was being driven in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy.
4. Whether the claimant is entitled for payment of compensation, if yes then from which of the respondents?
The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence lead by the claimant and the respondent no.1, recorded a categorical finding that there are major contradictions in the evidence produced by the claimant. Further, the appellant has not examined any other person in support of his claim. Therefore, the Tribunal discarded the evidence lead by the claimant and held that in the circumstances, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of the claimant.
It is an admitted case of the claimant that the alleged accident had occurred on 28.5.2016 in the night at about 9 PM but there is no plausible explanation as to why he did not lodge the FIR on the day of the accident or on the next day but same has been lodged on 6.6.2016 when it is the case of the claimant that on the information about the accident, his family members and police personnel reached at the place of accident. There are material contradictions in the statement of the claimant with regard to the vehicle with which he met with the accident, how he identified the driver of the vehicle in the night and how he came to know about the number of the vehicle. It is also relevant to mention that the report of the accident was lodged by the claimant-Ram Lal at the police station whereas in the cross-examination he has stated that the FIR of the accident was lodged by Chotey Lal. In these circumstances, the finding recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse or against the material on record.
Similarly, there are major contradiction with regard to the age of the claimant. In the claim petition, the claimant has shown his age as 50 years whereas in the medical report, his age has been mentioned as 60 years. In the medical bills of Pragati Nursing Home, which has been submitted by the claimant, his age has been shown as 75 years. In medical bill no. 11Ga/1 which mentions about the surgery and the age of the claimant as 25 years. Therefore, it is hard to believe the medical papers submitted by the claimant for the purposes of claiming compensation. Moreover, in one of the medical paper, the date of starting treatment has been mentioned as 13.6.2016 whereas in the paper of Pragati Nursing Home { receipt no.11Ga/4] the date of payment of bill has been mentioned as 12.6.2016.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the claimant has completely failed to prove its case and even did not examine any other person in support of his case.
For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment is approved and the present appeal is hereby dismissed.
Order Date: 6.7.2017
MH/` [S.K.Singh,J.] [Devendra K.Arora,J.]
