ASHOKBHAI RAVJIBHAI FEFAR v. BABUBHAI CHHAGANBHAI ZINZUWADIA & 2
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
vehicle and, therefore, this claim petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= ASHOKBHAI RAVJIBHAI FEFAR - Appellant(s) Versus BABUBHAI CHHAGANBHAI ZINZUWADIA & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SANDEEP N BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. MR SHALIN N MEHTA for Defendant(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 19/04/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT
Operative part
1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 19th August 1999 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FA/7048/1999 JUDGMENT Morvi in Claim Petition No.32 of 1998 whereby the Tribunal has passed the following order:
Injured claimant is entitled to recover the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs.97,800/- but as he failed to establish the involvement of the offending vehicle and also failed to establish that he sustained injuries by the said vehicle and, therefore, this claim petition stands dismissed so far present opponents are concerned with costs.
2.0 According to the claimant, on 3.12.1997 the claimant was proceeding towards village Lalpar for business purpose along with his friend by walking. When they reached nearby weigh-bridge, a truck came from back side and dashed him as a result of which he sustained serious injuries He therefore filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the aforesaid award came to be filed.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the claim petition is not allowed on the ground that the involvement of vehicle in accident is not established by the applicant. According to him there are ample evidence to show the involvement of vehicle in the accident.
4.0 As regards the non-involvement of the vehicle is concerned, the FA/7048/1999 JUDGMENT Tribunal has discussed the same in para 6. The relevant part reads as under: “...Further, initially after accident, claimants was transmitted to the hospital of Dr. Anil Patel and as per procedure, Dr. Patel has filled in the prescribed Forms Exhs. 77 and 78, wherein Dr. Patel has taken the signature of claimant's brother namely Rajesh Ravjibhai in the column that injury sustained by the claimant is not M.L.C in which intimation is required to be given to the police machinery and Dr. Patel, admitted in his cross-examination that he also not intimated the police machinery for admitting the claimant for the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, there appear a reasonable doubt regarding injuries sustained by the claimant in a vehicular accident. Further, assuming for the sake of arguments that in the F.I.R, injured claimant himself has given explanation that he was under the treatment as in indoor patient for about 25 days and, therefore, he could not lodge complaint before the police machinery, but that explanation is untenable and not acceptable or believable, because he was accompanied by his said friend Mukesh Pitambar at the time of accident.
Moreover, even his brother who transmitted him to the hospital of Dr. Anil Patel could have lodged the complaint before the police machinery if at all the claimant has sustained injuries in the vehicular accident. What was the reason for not lodging F.I.R by the brother of injured claimant namely Rajesh Ravjibhai or by his friend Mukesh Pitambar and over an above, what was the reason for Dr. Anil Patel not to intimate the police machinery for admitting the M.L.C. in his hospital. Crux of the said discussion is obviously comes out to the effect that infact, claimant has not sustained injuries in the vehicular accident and, therefore, brother of the claimant namely Rajesh Ravji has not made signature in M.L.C Forms Exh. 77 and 78. Therefore, I fully agree with the submission made by learned advocate Mr. J.J. Trivedi for the Insurance Co. that entire F.I.R regarding accidental injury has been subsequently after thought with a view to snatch away the FA/7048/1999 JUDGMENT amount of compensation from the Insurance Co. and, therefore, claimant has failed to establish that he has sustained injuries in a vehicular accident caused by opponent No.1.
Moreover, Dr. Patel, has not given his opinion in his certificate Exh. 27 to the effect that the claimant has sustained injuries in a vehicular accident. On the contrary, he has simply opined that the injuries no. 1 to 4 sustained by claimant caused by hard blunt substance. If at all, he was in the know of sustaining injuries in a vehicular accident as per his report Exh 77 then he could have given opinion that said injuries sustained by claimant is caused by vehicular accident. Therefore, this certificate Exh. 27 also creates doubt regarding injuries sustained in vehicular accident. It is to be noted that no one has appeared for and on behalf of driver and owner of the vehicle. Therefore, claimant has totally failed to prove that he sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck No. GJ-3U-5615 by the present opponent and, therefore, I answer issue No. 1 in the negative.”
5.0 Thus, even the complaint in respect of the accident was not filed and the claimant has failed to establish that he has sustained injuries in a vehicular accident.
6.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant is not in a position to assail the judgement on any ground whatsoever. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. FA/7048/1999 JUDGMENT (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: vehicle and, therefore, this claim petition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 19 Aug 1999. The bench was K S JHAVERI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.