1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 482 of 1996 MANAJI MEENA V/S AMRIT LAL @ AMARA MEENA Mr. BM BHOJAK, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. GR BHARI for Mr. SANJAY MATHUR, for the respondent Date of Order : 21.4.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. JUDGMENT -------- This appeal has been filed by the claimant against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dungarpur dated 28.5.1996 dismissing the claim petition in toto. The necessary facts are that on 3.7.1995 the appellant filed a claim petition alleging inter-alia that on 14.3.95 in the noon, he was carrying his Thela Gadi containing grocery articles, and oil tins, in that process, when he reached near the road-junction, at that time a motorcycle came from the front side, and hit the Thela Gadi, and the claimant, as a result of which, he sustained fracture on the left leg, and also sustained grievous injury on the private part, thereupon, he was admitted in hospital, oil tins got damaged, for which a First Information Report was lodged, and a challan was submitted. 2 To this claim petition, a reply was filed on behalf of the defendant-owner. However, from perusal of the reply, it transpires that it does not bear signature of anybody on any page whatever. The learned Tribunal framed two issues. One regarding to the question, as to whether on the date and time, the delinquent motorcyclist caused the accident by negligent driving by the motorcycle, and issue No.2 is relating to quantum. During trial, the claimant produced various documentary evidence, like FIR, site inspection note, mechanical inspection report of the motorcycle, his injury report, licence, insurance cover note, X-ray plates, disability certificate etc., and examined himself as P.W.1. Notwithstanding the written-statement being not signed and requiring to be ignored, the learned Tribunal recorded the statement of the defendant also as D.W.1. However, the learned Tribunal decided issue No.1 against the claimant and found that it is not established from the evidence of the claimant that as a matter of fact, the defendant caused any accident. However, wile deciding issue No.2, learned Tribunal made an assessment of compensation. 3 Assailing the finding on issue No.1, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that once the written-statement is not signed, the learned Tribunal could not look into the written-statement much less the evidence of the defendant and in that situation, there is no reason for not believing the statement given by the claimant as P.W.1, who is an illiterate villager belonging to Scheduled Tribe, and the minor contradictions appearing in his statement hear and there should not have been magnified out of all proportions as done by learned Tribunal, rather a liberal attitude was required to be taken in the matter of motor accidents, and the issue No.1 is required to be decided in favour of the claimant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant supported the impugned judgment. I have read the statement of P.W.1 over again with the assistance of both the learned counsel. From the reading of the statement, it does transpire that he has reiterated the story, to the effect, that he was carrying the Thela and the motorcycle came from behind and hit him, as a result of which he sustained two fractures in the leg, and also sustained injury on the private parts and the hand. It is deposed that after 4 accident Ramesh carried him to hospital, then he has proved the documents produced and has deposed about the continued disability. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the claim was filed against a wrong person and that name was wrongly mentioned on giving out by his brother Kana while the claimant was in hospital, and then he came to know of the error today only. Then he has denied the suggestion about the Thela being negotiating an upgradient and in view of the heavy weight being carried therein it rolled down and caused the injury to the claimant. Regarding identity of the defendant he deposed that Ramesh has told that motorcycle was being driven by Amrit Lal. Then he has also denied the suggestion about Amrit Lal having seen injured lying on the road and extended assistance to carry him to hospital. Of course, the pleading taken in the written- statement and the evidence led by the defendant cannot be taken into account, and are simply required to be ignored. Then if the case is examined even on the basis of the material produced on the side of the claimant, including the documents and oral statements of P.W.1, I am not inclined to accept the story as propounded by the claimant. In the first instance, it is significant to note that in the claim petition in para 21, it is alleged that the motorcycle came from the front direction and hit the 5 Thela, and the claimant, as against which, in the statement, the claimant has deposed that motorcycle came from behind, and hit him. This is very material contradiction, inasmuch as, the impact would altogether be different in either of the situation. If the motorcycle were to hit from front side, the injuries would be sustained by the victim by impact of the Thela, and its contents i.e. the load being carried therein, while if the motorcycle were to hit from behind, the injuries would be sustained by the motorcycle, and on account of the injury sustained by the victim, he might not be in a position to manage the Thela, or that might get rolled down or damaged. In the present case, the statement is very categoric, to the effect that the motorcycle came from behind, which is at complete variance with the pleadings taken. Then it is required to be comprehended that if the motorcycle was to hit from behind and consequently, the Thela were to roll down, it would definitely had some impact on the motorcycle as well, as the case of the claimant is that Thela got completely damaged, and the oil tins also got broken, as against which, a look at Ex.5 the mechanical inspection report shows, that it doesn't show any marks of any impact on the motorcycle consequent upon any accident that might have occurred. In this sequence, the FIR has been lodged on the next day at 12.45 PM while the accident occurred on 14th March itself and is lodged by the wife of the claimant, who obviously would state only on the basis of hearsay. In that 6 background, may be that as a rule, it may not be necessary to examine all the witnesses, if the statement of the claimant only inspires confidence, but when his statement does not inspire confidence in view of the contradictions, his evidence was required to be corroborated in material particulars, and in the present case, the corroborative evidence was available, being Ramesh, who is said to be the eye-witness, who has not been examined. In these circumstances, may be that for little different reasons than ones recorded by the learned Tribunal, but then I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No.1 even after reappreciation of the evidence. The net result is that I do not find any force in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/