JUDGMENT S.S. Kulshrestha, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record.
2. This appeal is brought against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, Court No. 2, Etawa in M.A.C.P. No. 78/2004 between Ravindra Sharma and Ashok Singh and Another. It is said that the learned Tribunal had not properly appreciated the material on record and arrived at wrongful conclusion while awarding compensation to the claimant/respondent No. 1. It is also said that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident and the entire claim was set up by the petitioner in a fanciful manner and in connivance with the owner of the vehicle. Even no information of this accident was given to the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Company).
3. In order to facilitate the disposal of this appeal a brief resume of the facts may be made. It was on 16.10.2003 at about 2.30 p.m. the claimant was going from Shastri Chawraha to Kacheri on foot. He was to the extreme left of the road and when he reached near to Paliwal Dharamshala truck No. UP75 B 9372 hit him from back inflicting serious injuries to him. He sustained fracture of seventh rib and other bodily injuries. The accident was witnessed by Mr. Prem Shankar, Mr. Guddu and others. The truck was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the truck. Further it is also said that the claimant was engaged in business and was having a general store. He was earning about Rs. 6,000 per month and he had to spend huge sum for his medical treatment, the details of which have also been given. For the loss of income, pain and suffering total amount of Rs, 5,72,000 was claimed, This claim petition was resisted by Mr. Ashok Singh, the owner of the truck on the ground that the truck was net Involved In accident, it was not on road on the relevant date and time, The claim is all said to be false and frivolous. To the contrary the Insurance Company contended that the accident had not taken place and even the insurance Company was not apprised with the said accident, The truck in question was also not involved in that accident. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence and materials on record clarified that there was the clerical mistake with regard to the description of number of the truck. The truck, which met with the accident, was virtually U.P. 75B 9372, which was insured with the defendant Insurance Company, which is herein the appellant. Truck was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver. The amount of compensation was worked out to be Rs. 23,310 on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties.
4. First and foremost argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the truck in question was not involved in that accident and for that reliance has been placed on the final report so submitted by the police. With regard to that accident FIR No. 18/2004 under Sections 279/338, IPC was registered at P.S. Kotwali, Etawah. It is also said that the final report (FR) appears to have been accepted by the learned Magistrate.
5. Suffice is to mention that there is nothing on record to show that the learned Magistrate had accepted that FR. Mere signature on the FR would not be sufficient to show that FR was accepted. Complainant was required to be heard on the FR. There is nothing on record that he was heard on protest petition. The FR was submitted by the Investigating Officer on the basis that in the FIR there was description of truck No. UP 75D 9372 whereas in claim petition involvement of truck No. UP 75 B 9372 had been shown. From the perusal of FR it appears that no analysis has been made by the Investigating Officer on the basis of the statements of the witnesses. However, that is all a matter to be looked into by the learned Magistrate. No reliance can be placed on that FR. The claimant and his witnesses have proved the involvement of the truck in question in the accident wherein the seventh rib of the claimant was fractured. He remained hospitalized and had to spend a good amount for his treatment. On that basis the learned Tribunal had worked out Rs. 5,000 towards pain and suffering. Further on the basis of receipts and prescriptions Rs. 16,309 were adjusted to be payable towards medical treatment and Rs. 2,000 towards loss of his profession. In that way total payability of the compensation amount was worked out to be Rs. 23,310. I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the impugned award. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The amount deposited under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act shall be adjusted towards compensation amount.