JUDGMENT
T.S. Doabia, J.
1. Suresh Babu Nath claimant has preferred this appeal against the award given by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Gwalior, whereby the Tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to claim any compensation as there was no negligence on the part of the State or its employees. After recording this finding, a further direction has also been given that the appellant is to refund a sum of Rs. 7,500/- received by him towards no fault liability.
2. The brief facts of this case are as under.
3. It is alleged that an accident took place in the early hours of the morning of 26th Jan., 1988. The manner in which the accident took
place was disputed by both the sides. The vehicle which was involved in the accident bears registration No. CPZ 52. This jeep is owned by the State Government. The driver of this vehicle was one Hargovind. According to him, he had parked this vehicle near the residence of Tahsildar on the left side of the road. He had gone to inform the Tahsildar about his arrival. When he came back, he found that a scooter had hit the jeep from the back. The number of the scooter has not been given by him. It is futher stated by Hargovind that he rebuked the driver of the scooter and its two other occupants. They expressed regrets. According to him, Ramlakhan who was driving the scooter informed him that his brother had died on the previous day in the Jail and on account of this mental strain he was unable to notice the stationary jeep, It is further stated by the diriver of the Jeep that he gave lift to Ramlakhan and his companion out of compassion, including the appellant. Rmalakhan was dropped near the jail whereas Suresh Babu was dropped near the house of his friend. According to the driver of the Jeep there was a third man also on the scooter.
4. The case put by the claimant is that the accident did not take place in the manner suggested by the driver of the Jeep. The driver of the Jeep has been said to be solely responsible for the accident. It is alleged that the jeep was coming at high speed. It hit the scooter and dragged it to about 15 feet. It is stated that injuries were sustained by the appellant in the process.
5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, did not believe the story put forward by the claimants. The reasons given were that even though the accident had taken place on 26th Jan. 1988 in the early hours no effort was made to lodge any report with the police authorities for about three weeks. The fact that claimant is trained in law was taken note of. An inference was drawn that had the accident taken place on account of the negligence of the driver of the jeep then the appellant would have immediately lodged the report with the police authorities. The fact that the report was lodged after three weeks prevailed upon the Claims Tribunal to come
to conclusion that the story put forward by the claimant is not correct. The further fact was that even though the appellant stated that he visited the doctor on the next date and found that there is a fracture on the tibia of the right limb even then no report was lodged with the police authorities. The belated first information report was taken as a factor to come to a conclusion that an effort has been made to bring into existence some evidence.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence on the record and also oral statements made by the claimant and his withnesses. The statement of the appellant who was examined as P.W. 4 is in para 10 of his statement ‘MERI GADI MAIN TAKKAR LAGGI THEE’. On a plain reading of this statement, it becomes apparent that it is the appellant who hit the jeep and not viceversa. The learned counsel for the appellant wants this line to be read in a manner to suggest that it is the jeep whcih struck the scooter. This is not possible in view of the plain meaning decipherabel from the statement referred to above.
7. Even driver of the scooter, Ramlakhan has made no effort to produce on record any evidence which may suggest that he was admitted in the hospital. Had the claimants been dragged for 15 feet, then there should have been some other injuries also on their person. The absence of the injuries clearly suggest that the accident did not take place in the manner suggested by the claimants and the story put forward by the driver of the jeep is correct.
8. So far as the no fault liability is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a decision given in Mangilal v. M.P.S.R.T.C. 1988 WN 204 at page 294. According to him, this liability is there notwithstanding that there was no fault with . the vehicle in question. For this reliance has been palced on Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This provision read as under.
“92A. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. (1) Where the death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or
motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) The amount of compensation shall be payable, under Sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of fifteen thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of seven thousand five hundred rupees.
(3) In any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(4) A claim for compensation under Sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable, in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement.
The term permanent disability has been defined in Section 92C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which reads as under.–
“92C. Permanent disablement. — For the purposes of this chapter permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 92 A, if such person has suffered by reason of the accident any injury or injuries involving–
(a) permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member or joint; or
(b) destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint, or
(c) permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
The claimant did not sustain any permanent disability in this case. No evidence in this regard has been produced. P.W. 3 Doctor V.K. Jain, has stated that there is no abnormality in the gait of the claimant and his movements are normal. The fact that scooter number has not been disclosed and the fact that nothing has been indicated as to the damage caused to the scooter is also to be taken note. The fact that the claimant was not admitted in any Hospital nor nursing home suggests that by his own negligence he sustained injuries of trivial nature. Thus the claim of the appellant that he can retain a sum of Rs. 7500/- paid to him towards no fault liability is misconceived. He must return the same. In the event of his not refunding the amount within a period of three months from today, the State would be at liberty to charge interest which is fixed at 12% p.a.
The appeal is without merit and is dismissed.