Dhani Bhoraj, Aasalpur, Jobner Jaipur v. Rajasthan Police Academy

1/5. Munni Bai W/o Bhajan Lal D/o late Shri Sannuram R/o in front of Pawan Dham Dharamshala, Mehandipur Balaji, District Dausa. 1/6. Asha Devi W/o Madan Lakhan D/o late Shri Sannuram R/o Dhani Bhoraj, Aasalpur, Jobner Jaipur. Versus ----Appellant

1. Shri Ajaaj Nabi S/o Shri Sarvar Kha, R/o House No.299, Rajasthan Police Academy (RPA), Sastri Nagar, Jaipur (Driver and Owner of Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.RJ-14-42M-

2. New India Assurance Company Ltd. MI Road, Jaipur (Insurance Company of Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.RJ- 14-42M-2015) (Valid dated: 15.10.2005 to 14.10.2006, Policy No.330200/31/05/07407). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ritwick Dave For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain [2025:RJ-JP:23635] (2 of 6) [CMA-7039/2011] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 03/02/2025 Order

1. Instant civil misc. appeal is preferred by appellant-claimant aggrieved from judgment dated 05.08.2011 in MAC Case No.944/2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as ‘MACT’) in a petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (hereinafter referred as ‘MV Act’).

2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has expired and he has moved an application for substitution of LRs under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

3. Learned counsel for respondent has no objection in case of substitution.

4. Having considered submission of learned counsels for the parties, the application for substitution under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC is allowed and the legal representatives as proposed in the application are taken on record and substituted in place of deceased appellant-claimant after condonation of delay and setting aside of abatement, if any.

5. Amended cause title is taken on record and application stands disposed of.

6. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant submits that arising out of accident dated 25.11.2005, the claimant has suffered injuries and to claim compensation, a claim petition has been filed, but same was erroneously dismissed by the Tribunal. He further submitted that it is a settled position of law that delayed [2025:RJ-JP:23635] (3 of 6) [CMA-7039/2011] information to police, is not fatal to claim petition. He further submitted that a claim petition is decided on preponderance of probabilities and in the instant case, police has filed a charge- sheet after investigation, which is sufficient to draw a conclusion that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident. He further submitted that after the accident, the claimant underwent hospitalization and due to time in treatment, a report was not lodged in time. He further submitted that an eye-witness is also examined in support of evidence of claimant, to prove incident. He further submitted that when injured herself examined as a witness then there is no necessity to examine any other injured witness. At last, he submitted that appellant-claimant is entitled for compensation in accordance with principle of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. AIR 2017 SC 5157.

7. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.2 and he submitted that this is a false and fabricated case, wherein the vehicle was falsely implicated to secure claim from Insurance Company. He also submitted that there was a delay of more than 45 days in reporting the matter to police, which is sufficient to cast a doubt on the incident. He further submitted that as per report, daughter-in-law of injured was not examined as an eye-witness and the Tribunal has not committed any error while drawing a conclusion against appellant.

8. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

9. The appellant-claimant has filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of MV, Act on the ground that on [2025:RJ-JP:23635] (4 of 6) [CMA-7039/2011]

25.11.2005, when she along with Babita Devi was moving from Hotel Neelam to Polovictory then driver of motorcycle RJ-14-42M- 2015 hit her in rash and negligent manner resulting in injuries to claimant herself and Babita. FIR No.09/2006 registered at P.S. Vidyhayakpuri and thereafter, a charge-sheet has been filed against respondent No.1. The claimant has claimed ₹9,80,000/- as compensation. Respondent No.1 has denied the accident and claimed that he stopped at the place of incident. Respondent No.2 has not only denied the incident, but pleaded that to secure claim the vehicle was falsely implicated. The Tribunal has framed four issues, and three witnesses were examined by claimant, but no evidence was produced by the non-applicants. The Tribunal has found that the involvement of vehicle was not proved and claimant is not entitled for any compensation and the claim petition was dismissed.

10. A perusal of record clearly reflect that the occurrence is of

25.11.2005, whereas the matter was reported to police on

05.01.2006. The claimant has claimed that she was admitted in hospital and thereafter she discharged from hospital, but report was not registered as the driver of vehicle has agreed to bear expenses of her treatment. The record indicate that claimant was discharged on 06.12.2005, and moreover during her admission in hospital, she has not informed about accident by offending vehicle insured with non-applicant No.2.

11. There is a significant delay in lodging a police report. A significant delay is sufficient to cast a doubt on the incident particularly when a person injured in an accident and further her close relative was traveling with her at the time of incident. The [2025:RJ-JP:23635] (5 of 6) [CMA-7039/2011] reason of delay must be explained in a sufficient manner, but herein this case, after accident on 25.11.2005 when this injured was taken to hospital and admitted in hospital then the incident could be reported by her daughter-in-law Babita. Even Babita was not produced as witness by claimant. In a medico legal case, normally it is the duty of a doctor first to attend the injured and then to inform the police, but in the instant case despite a medico legal case, no information given to police otherwise said information should be brought on record. If same is not available then it is sufficient to cast a doubt on claim of claimant.

12. A substantial delay in lodging report is sufficient to doubt on credibility of AW-1. A long delay is sufficient to presume that the claimant may have fabricated a story and after a false implication, a report was registered. Herein this case, it is not possible for the Tribunal to draw a conclusion only on the basis of charge-sheet. A police report is not a conclusive proof rather duty lies upon the claimant to prove and establish the facts of the case.

13. In case of Thulia Kali Vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1973 SC 501, Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised the significance of lodging a timely FIR in case involving cognizable offence. In a criminal case, the police report is a crucial and priceless piece of evidence for validating the oral testimony provided at trial. Any FIR is not an encyclopedia, but certainly the purpose it to collect information as soon as possible about the crime committed against the victim. An extraordinary delay creates opportunity for exaggerated and concocted story but all depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. [2025:RJ-JP:23635] (6 of 6) [CMA-7039/2011]

14. Having considered the material available on record, I am of considered view that the evidence of claimant is not sufficient to clear the doubt created after a significant delay in reporting the matter to the police. Herein this case, non-examination of Babita is fatal to the case of claimant, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly decided issue Nos.1 and 2 against the claimant.

15. There is no perversity or illegality in the judgment passed by the MACT and no scope for interference by this Court. Thus, this misc. appeal sans merits.

16. In view of discussion made herein above, the instant civil misc. appeal filed aggrieved from order dated 05.08.2011 in MAC Case No.944/2008 is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any.

17. No order as to costs. GAURAV /82 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J