Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.
The instant appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 30.3.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Lucknow, whereby the claim petition no. 700 of 2015 preferred by Shiv Shanker Singh-Appellant claiming compensation in respect of the accident said to have occurred on 4.6.2014 at about 9 PM, has been dismissed.
There is delay in filing the present appeal and as such an application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal has been preferred by the appellant. We have gone through the said application and the affidavit filed in support thereof and found that the delay have not been sufficiently explained. However, on due consideration, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and now, we proceed to examine the correctness of the judgment under challenge.
It is said that on 4.6.2014 at about 9 PM , Shiv Shanker Singh, who is a Constable in the Police Department, was going to attend his duty and when he reached near Government Press, Talkatora Road, Bazar-Khala, district Lucknow, by his motor-cycle bearing no. UAE 5831, one Bhagwati Prasad, who was driving Santro Car No. UP 32 AB 5718, hit his motorcycle and as such he fell down and suffered serious injuries. In respect of the said accident, an FIR was lodged by the son of Bhagwati Prasad-respondent no.1 on 5.6.2014 at Police Station Bazar-Khala. On account of injuries suffered by him in the said accident and for its treament huge amount of money was spent, the appellant-claimant has filed the above referred claim petition, which was seriously contested by the respondent- Bhagwati Prasad and Insurance Company. The respondent no.1 stated in his written statement that he is the owner of Santro Car No. UP AB 5718 but denied the allegations made in the claim petition. He further stated that his vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company which was valid and effective on the date of the accident. Further, on the said date, the vehicle was being driven by Anshul Kumar, who was having valid and effective driving licence and in fact no accident had occurred with the said vehicle.
The Insurance Company stated that the onus to prove the accident lies on the claimant, who had not produced admissible copy of the FIR, site-plan and other relevant papers relating to the accident. He had also not produced driving licence, registration certificate, insurance certificate relating to the offending vehicle. Moreover, the claimant was not having valid driving licence on the date of accident.
The Tribunal after minutely examining the documentary and ocular evidence observed that the claimant himself had stated in his statement that when the accident occurred, his motorcycle was not insured. He also stated that as the head light of the car was on, he could not see the number of the vehicle. Surprisingly, the claimant has produced photo copies of the FIR, site-place and copy of the technical report which are not admissible in evidence. It may be observed that the claimant is a police constable and he can easily get the copies of the aforesaid document verified from the police station but he failed to do so, which creates doubt and as such the finding recorded by the Tribunal that no accident had occurred in the manner as alleged by claimant, cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable.
Apart from above, the Tribunal has examined all the other pleas raised by the claimant and recorded findings of fact, which are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, we find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, which is hereby approved.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Order Date:-31.7.2018 Akanksha S/MH