Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Chandra Prakash vs Bablu & Ors on 16 May, 2012
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4335/2008 Chandra Prakash Vs. Bablu and Another Date of Order ::: 16.05.2012 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Sandeep Mathur, counsel for appellant #### By the Court:-
The appeal is time barred by 113 days and appellant has filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. For stated reasons, application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Matter is heard on merits.
Claimant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by order dated 27.08.2007 of learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Tonk (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), in MAC Case No.120/2007 (385/2007) (189/2005), whereby learned Tribunal rejected his claim case.
Appellant, in a road accident took place on 06.08.2004 while he was going on a motorcycle, sustained serious injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, who was also driving a motorcycle. The accident took place between two motorcycles.
Contention of learned counsel for appellant is that at relevant point of time appellant was 40 years of age. He was a conductor and used to earn about Rs.8000/- per month. Appellant sustained fractures in his second and third metacarpal bone of left hand. He remained under treatment continuously for six months. The appellant sustained 3% permanent disability. He cannot drive the vehicle. His working capacity has been reduced considerably. Learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting his claim case. It is therefore prayed that appeal be allowed and appellant may be awarded compensation as prayed for.
On hearing learned counsel for appellant and perusing material on record, I am of the view that learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim case of appellant. Learned Tribunal, while deciding issue no.1, recorded that first information report (Exhibit-1) of the incident, was lodged on 03.09.2004 whereas accident took place on 06.08.2004. Thus, there is considerable delay in its lodgment. From mechanical inspection report of offending motorcycle (Exhibit-5) it is clear that it was badly damaged and was not worth plying. Therefore, statement of AW-1 Chandra Prakash cannot be relied on, wherein he stated that driver fled away on offending motorcycle immediately after accident took place. Had the motorcycle been found in a damaged condition as per Exhibit-5, it could not have been taken away of the site. In injury report (Exhibit-7), appellant is shown to have received simple injury on elbow of his right hand, swelling on left hand and pain in teeth. Except this, there is no other injury described in the injury report. Appellant has not produced any medical bill for alleged period of six months during which he stated to have remained hospitalized. Appellant, in his statement, has not stated name of hospital from which he got treatment. He has not produced any certificate or discharge ticket showing him to be indoor patient for 3-4 days. In view of above, learned Tribunal has rightly rejected claim case of appellant and I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by learned Tribunal.
The appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//4 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Giriraj Prasad Jaiman PS-cum-JW