Jaili Ram vs Bijender Sharma and Others

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—The present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant, assailing the impugned award dated 16.3.2014, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short ''the Tribunal''), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the appellant utterly failed to substantiate the nature of injuries suffered by him, the treatment received by him and the expenses injured for getting treatment. He refers to Ex. P11, MLR of the appellant and submits that the appellant suffered five injuries. He has been advised for a surgery of hip bone. He prays allowing the claim petition and granting the reasonable compensation.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that the appellant could not prove his case, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant. He prays for the dismissal of the appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

In para 18 of the impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has observed as under:-

No doctor has stepped into the witness box, in order to prove injuries suffered by claimant-Jaili Ram. It was imperative on the part of claimant-Jaili Ram to lead sufficient evidence, admission in law in order to prove the nature of injuries suffered by him and consequent treatment. He has plainly relied upon MLR Ex. P11. This MLR reveals that he (Jaili Ram) has sustained five injuries. Mere marking of document as an exhibit, would not dispense with the formal proof of it. In this context reliance can be placed upon ratio of law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and Another, . He has also not led any documentary evidence showing that he had ever spent over Rs. 1 lac on his treatment. There are no medical receipts showing purchase of any medicines by him. There is no evidence on record that he had ever engaged service of any attendant. No witness has stepped in, so as to fortify this stance of the claimant. He has not been able to substantiate his business of trading wooden item and loss suffered by him in it, owing to the injuries suffered by him. The bald statement of claimant-Jaili Ram will not sub serve his cause in any manner. This being so, the court has been left with no other option, but to observe that claimant-Jaili Ram utterly failed to substantiate the nature of injuries suffered by him, the treatment received by him, in relation to the injuries, the expenses incurred by him for getting treatment, his alleged loss in business, by leading any admissible evidence. Consequently, he (claimant-Jaili Ram) is not entitled to any compensation and issue No. 2 is answered against him.

In the absence of any doctor, proving medical evidence, how the bald statement of the appellant can be believed. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition of the appellant.

In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the well reasoned award, passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.