IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No.156 of 2005 Decided on: 3.12.2009 Sh.Ramesh Kumar …..Appellant. VERSUS The Managing Director, HRTC & ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Appellant: Mr.G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Sh.Adarsh Sharma, Advocate vice Sh.H.S.Rawat, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Lalit Sharma,Advocate for respondent No.6. Deepak Gupta,Judge (Oral) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Mandi in Claim Petition 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… No.95/2001 on 28.2.2005 whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the claimant Ramesh Kumar filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) claiming compensation for injuries allegedly sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident involving bus No.HP-42-0757 of HRTC region, Sarkaghat and scooter No.HP-28-1364. According to the allegations made in the claim petition, on 30.1.2000 when the petitioner was going to Sarkaghat on the scooter in question which was owned by Sh.Lekh Ram who is the real brother of the claimant and being driven by one Sh.Sohan Lal, the bus in question was coming from the opposite side. It was alleged that this bus was being driven at a high speed and due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus, the same struck against the scooter. Resultantly, the claimant fell down and sustained fracture on the right leg and compound fracture of mandible. According to …3… the claimant, he was removed by the driver of the bus to a private hospital at Sarkaghat and after he was given first aid there, he was taken by the said driver, respondent No.3 to Sanjeevan Hospital, Mandi from where the driver of the bus fled away. It is specifically alleged that respondent No.3 did not take the petitioner to a Government hospital because then a criminal case would have been registered against him. It is further alleged that when the family members of the claimant came to know about the accident and the fact that the claimant had been admitted in the Sanjeevan Hospital, Mandi, they came to Mandi and then the claimant was referred to IGMC, Shimla. The driver of the bus filed a reply stating that no accident had taken place with the bus in question. According to the driver, one person was lying on the side of the road and he was requested by the people to take him to hospital at Sarkaghat and he only did …4… that. It was denied that he had ever taken the claimant to the hospital at Mandi. As far as the HRTC is concerned, it has also taken a similar plea. The owner and driver of the scooter admitted the claim petition in toto. The parties led evidence and thereafter the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the claimant has lodged a false case and that no accident had taken place and hence dismissed the claim petition. Hence the present appeal. I have heard Sh.G.R.Palsra, learned counsel for the claimant, Sh.Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the HRTC and Sh.Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that in the claim petition though there is a specific column which requires that the date, time and place of accident should be mentioned, only the date and place is mentioned and time is not mentioned. The claimant appeared as his own witness as PW/4. …5… According to him, the accident took place in the manner stated in his claim petition. He however, makes a statement that he was taken by respondent No.3 in some other bus to Amarnath Memorial Hospital at Sarkaghat which is a private hospital and then he was shifted to Sanjeevan Hospital at Mandi from where the driver of the bus fled away. In the evening, his relatives reached Mandi. The statement of PW/5 Sohan Lal, driver of the scooter is to the similar effect. Interestingly, this witness states that the accident took place at about 7.30 p.m. This clearly shows that this witness was not present when the accident occurred. PW/6 is one Sh.Krishan Chand who claims to be a passenger in the offending bus and has supported the version of the claimant. The driver did not appear in the witness box but the conductor, RW/2 has taken a plea that the bus reached at Tatahal at about 7.00 a.m. A scooter was lying on the road and two persons were standing there. One person was having …6… injury on his leg. The bus driver and the conductor were requested to take the injured to the hospital at Sarkaghat. They took the injured to Sarkaghat Hospial, left him there and went on towards their destination in the bus. According to this witness, the bus reached Mandi at 9.45 a.m. A suggestion has been put to this witness that at Sarkaghat the petitioner was got checked through some private doctor which he denied. RW/3 is the owner of the scooter. It would be pertinent to mention here that he was the real brother of the claimant but this fact was neither stated in the claim petition nor by the witnesses. This fact has only come out during the course of arguments. RW-2A, Des Raj is a pharmacist from Civil Hospital, Sarkaghat who has produced the MLC Ext.RW2/1A which has been written by one Dr.Rakesh Mohan. This witness has identified the writing and signatures of Dr.Rakesh Mohan. At the outset, it may be noticed that no FIR has been lodged in respect of the …7… alleged accident. It is true that merely because an FIR is not lodged does not mean that the accident had not taken place. There may be various circumstances why an FIR is not lodged. However, these circumstances must be apparent from the record of the case. In the present case, it is alleged that the bus hit the scooter. The scooter must also have been damaged. The scooter driver has appeared as PW/5 but does not say a ward as to why no FIR was lodged. According to the claimant, he had become unconscious. Even if this is believed, Sohan Lal, driver of the scooter had not become unconscious. No worthwhile explanation has come on record to show why no complaint was lodged with the police or any other authority. Secondly if reference is made to the Ex.RW2/1A which has been duly proved on record, it is apparent that the claimant Ramesh Kumar, son of Sh.Khazana Ram was treated at the Regional Hospital, Sarkaghat on 30.1.2000 at about 8.30 a.m. In this MLC it is written that the …8… claimant was brought by his brother Suresh Kumar. It is also recorded that there is history of slip of foot resulting in fall from height leading to a number of injuries. It is also recorded that the patient is conscious, cooperative and well- oriented. This belies the statement of the claimant that he was unconscious. If he was conscious why did he not tell the doctor that he had suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The injuries on the person of the claimant are swelling of ankle, lacerated wounds, broken tooth injury and swelling. There is no injury of the nature which would result in his not being conscious. Furthermore, the claimant has told blatant before the Tribunal. Both in the claim petition as well as in his statement, he said that with a view to avoid the recording of a MLC, the driver of the bus took him to a private hospital at Sarkaghat. This fact is totally incorrect. RW2/1A clearly shows that he was treated at the Government hospital, i.e., Regional Hospital, Sarkaghat and MLC was recorded. Since the claimant or his attendant …9… gave a history that he had slipped obviously no report was made to the police. According to the claimant, he was taken to Sanjeevan Hospital at Mandi by the driver of the bus. The conductor has denied this fact. The claimant himself has proved all record from Sanjeevan Hospital, Mandi which has been exhibited as Ext.P/C. This record shows that the claimant was admitted in Sanjeevan Hospital, Mandi at 1.40 p.m. In the same form, it is written that the patient was accompanied by his brother Suresh. In the history it has been recorded that the claimant fell down from a tree and has been referred from Regional Hospital, Sarkaghat where first aid and anti- tatnus injection was given. The patient is stated to be fully conscious. It is thus clear that in Sanjeevan Hospital, the claimant or his accompanying relative gave a twist to the story and stated that he had fallen from a tree. Again there was no mention of the claimant having suffered the injuries in a motor vehicle accident. …10… The statement of the driver of the scooter, PW/5 cannot be relied upon since according to him the accident took place at 7.30 p.m. whereas admittedly the claimant was admitted at the Regional Hospital at Sarkaghat at 8.30 a.m. The fact that the claimant was taken to the Regional Hospital at Sarkaghat is corroborated by Ext.PC, the document relied upon and produced by the claimant from Sanjeevan Hospital, Mandi which clearly makes reference to the fact that the petitioner has been referred from Regional Hospital, Sarkaght. The story of the claimant that he was taken to a private hospital is obviously false. It also cannot be believed that the claimant would have been taken to Sarkaghat or to Mandi in some other bus as stated by Sohan Lal. The driver of the other bus has not been examined. There is not an iota of evidence on record to show that the driver of the HRTC bus took the claimant to Mandi. This allegation of the claimant is belied by the record produced by him as referred to above. …11… The statement of PW/6 also cannot be relied upon because according to him the claimant was removed to Sarkaghat by the driver and the conductor of the HRTC bus in the same bus whereas RW/2, Gopal Singh states that the claimant was taken in some other bus. In view of above discussion, the salient features which emerge are that no FIR was lodged alleging that any motor vehicle accident had taken place. In the history recorded at the Regional Hospital, Sarkaghat, it is mentioned that the claimant suffered injuries when he slipped and fell down from a height. In this document, it is also mentioned that the claimant was accompanied by his brother Suresh. Even in the document of Sanjeevan Hospital, it is clearly mentioned that the claimant was accompanied by his brother Suresh. In both the medical certificates, it is clearly mentioned that the patient was fully conscious. This clearly shows that the claimant is telling a lie when he states that he was unconscious. He is also proved to be telling a lie …12… when he states that he was taken to a private hospital at Sarkaghat to avoid lodging of a criminal case. There is no explanation why the claimant or his brother Suresh Kumar could not give the true history to the doctor. There is no reason as to why the driver of the scooter could not lodge the FIR. The FIR could easily have been lodged a day or two later. Even though the accident is stated to have been taken place on 30.1.2000 and the claim petition filed on 3.10.2001, i.e., after one year and nine months later, there is no explanation in the petition or in the statement as to why no effort was made to correct the record of the hospital or to lodge an FIR with the police. From the aforesaid, it is obvious that the claimant has filed an absolutely false case only with intention of grabbing compensation. The learned Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the claimant had filed a false case. …13… The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-. ( Deepak Gupta ) December 3, 2009(m) Judge.