Madhya Pradesh High Court
Durga Prashad @ Diyale Patil vs Ramji Pandey on 19 April, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 19 th OF APRIL, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 640 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
DURGA PRASHAD @ DIYALE PATIL S/O SHRI SUDELLA
PATIL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
JOB R/O. ARJUN NAGAR NEW DOCTOR COLONY P.T.S.
CHORAHA REWA POLICE STATION CIVIL LINES TEH.
HUJUR, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ALOK TIWARI - ADVOATE)
AND
1. RAMJI PANDEY S/O V.P. PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 35
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: CONTRACTOR AND
AGRICULTURIST, OWNER OF VEHICLE R/O.
RAMSAGAR MANDIR BADRAO POLICE STATION
CIVIL LINES TEH. HUZUR DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RAMJI PANDEY S/O V.P PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER DISTT REWA MP
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE SIRMOUR
CHOUK DISTT REWA MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI V.P. TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2 AND
SHREYAS PANDIT - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
SAN ORDER
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
This appeal is filed by the claimant, being aggrieved of award dated
Date: 2023.04.21 19:29:41 IST
30.10.2018, passed by learned III Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Rewa, District Rewa (M.P.), in MACC No.102/2016, for an accident which
allegedly took place on 26.10.2007.
2. It is submitted that Ex.P/3 is the copy of the register of the District Hospital
Rewa, in which against the name of the appellant, MLC is mentioned. Due to
influence of respondent No.2-Ramji Pandey, owner of the offending vehicle,
police did not register a case when appellant had moved an application
contained in Ex.P/1, but that too has not resulted in any outcome and, therefore,
claim petition was filed which has been rejected by the learned Claims Tribunal.
3. Shri Shreyas Pandit, submits that this claim is time barred. Accident
allegedly took place on 26.10.2007. Ex.P/1 has been discussed by the learned
Claims Tribunal. There is no mention of the police station on which it was
given. Date is 06.10.2008 i.e. after almost a year when the alleged accident took
place. No reason is given for not approaching the concerned authorities in time.
There is no material on record to show that if police had not recorded the FIR,
then claimant ever approached the Superintendent of Police Rewa, or the
concerned Court for seeking a direction to investigate the matter and register
FIR against the delinquent.
4. Thus, merely making a mention of MLC case against the name of the
appellant at Serial No.23813 is not a sufficient circumstance to prove that
appellant was a victim of road accident. There is another intriguing
circumstance that numbers of different cases is not in continuation. The
register starts from S.No.32701, then next number is 32796, then another
number is 32800, 32801, 32807, 32793, 32804, 32805, 32792, 32794, 32808,
Signature Not Verified
SAN 32809, 32811 and then against the name of the appellant number is mentioned as
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.21 19:29:41 IST
23813. Thus, the authenticity of the register which has been produced and
exhibited by the claimant as Ex.P/3 is doubtful that if it is a register issued by
the CMHO, SGMH Rewa (M.P.), then numbers in the register should have
been in a serial order. There cannot be arbitrary mentioning of the numbers if it
is a copy of the register. Besides this, there is no explanation as discussed by
the learned Claims Tribunal for not lodging the FIR against he offending vehicle
in time.
5. Shri Alok Tiwari has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in
Ravi Vs. Badri Narayan and others [(2011) 4 SCC 693), wherein, it is held
that in a case where injury is sustained by victim in of permanent nature, he
suffers more than a person who succums to the injuries. It is further held that
delay in lodging FIR though FIR is vital in deciding Motor Accident Claim
cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such
proceedings if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent
reasons for it.
6. In the present case, ratio of this judgment will not be applicable because
there is no FIR at all. Delay in FIR could be condoned as held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ravi Vs. Badri Narayan (supra) but there is no prescription
that in case of no FIR, claim can be awarded. Claimant has failed to
demonstrate from record that he had taken adequate steps to counter the
influence of the owner of the motor vehicle by approaching concerned
authorities as are provided under Cr.P.C. for recording of FIR which according
to him was not recorded under the influence of the respondent No.2-Ramji
Pandey.
7. Thus, in absence of FIR and there being any cogent material to substantiate
Signature Not Verified
SAN
that why FIR could not be lodged and why claimant had not approached the
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.21 19:29:41 IST
appropriate authorities seeking lodging of FIR, ratio in case of Ravi Vs. Badri
Narayan (supra) will not be applicable and, therefore, there being no error on
the face of record in the impugned award, there is no need for any indulgence to
be shown in favour of the appellant.
8. Appeal fails and is dismissed.
9. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.21 19:29:41 IST
