TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chowki Kolgawa. The injured persons were sent for medical examination. The body of the dead bullock was sent for post mortem examination. The police thereafter lodged a criminal case which perhaps is still pending. The appellant filed his claim before the Tribunal on January 3, 1975. He also filed an application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit. The claim and the application for condonation of delay were both opposed by the respondents. The Tribunal in its impugned award held that no sufficient cause was made out for condoning the delay in filing the claim. The Tribunal, however, found that injuries were caused on account of an accident which was due to rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal, in fact, calculated the amount of compensation to which the claimant may be held entitled. It thought that ₹ 700 on account of waste of grains, ₹ 1,000 on account of death of bullock, ₹ 500 damage to the bullock cart and ₹ 500 for personal injuries, i.e., a total amount of ₹ 2,700, would be sufficient compensation in the instant case. Though the Claims Tribunal held that the application was properly made on behalf of the claimant's br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owner of the vehicle, had visited the place and wanted the mattter to be settled by way of private settlement provided the criminal case was not filed. It was alleged that since the criminal, case was filed, the compromise talk failed in December, 1974. These allegations were denied by the respondents. More or less similar grounds were stated in the application for condonation of delay. Medical reports, exhibits P-1 and P-2, show that the claimant and his brother had received injuries. So far as the claimant was concerned, there were 8 injuries on his person when he was examined on January 23, 1974, by the medical officer. The injuries were simple in nature and yet the claimant was admitted in the hospital for treatment. Dr. Chaturvedi was examined before the Tribunal as witness No. 5 for the claimant and confirmed his earlier report. The report and the evidence of Dr. Chaturvedi would establish that besides lacerated wounds and abrasions, the claimant had made complaints of pain in right shoulder and chest. Dr. Chaturvedi, however, did not discover any abnormality by clinical examination. It is in evidence that both the brothers were discharged from the hospital after so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m during the illness. In cross examination, he has stated that Ramkumar was to be helped and could not get up from the bed. A reading of the statements would show that the claimant had received injuries and had complained of pain in the chest on the date of accident itself. He was admitted in the hospital and was discharged after some time. No one has stated that he was discharged because he was fully cured. On the contrary, it is in evidence that even after being discharged from the hospital, he had to be treated in his home. There are minor variations about the period during which the person remained confined to bed in his house. But these variations to me, do not appear to be material. While appreciating the evidence of village people, who are illiterate, one has to ignore these minor variations particularly when the statement was being recorded after more than 2 years in the court. No evidence has been given by the respondents to contradict the effect of illness of the claimant or prove that he was capable of undertaking the journey from his village to Satna to prefer the claim application. In this view of the matter, it has to be held that the claimant was incapacitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied. According to the learned counsel, the conclusions of the Claims Tribunal deserve to be given weight as no special circumstances have been shown to exist in this appeal. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Radha Prasad Singh v. Gajadhar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 115, in support of this proposition. Para 14 of this judgment lays down the law on the subject and is as under (p. 118): The position in law, in our opinion, is that when an appeal lies on facts, it is the right and the duty of the appeal court to consider what its decision on the question of facts should be ; but in coming to its own decision, it should bear in mind that it is looking at the printed record and has not the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and that it should not lightly reject the trial judge's conclusion that the evidence of a particular witness should be believed or should not be believed particularly when such conclusion is based on the observation of the demeanour of the witness in court. But, this does not mean that merely because an appeal court has not heard or seen the witness, it will in no case reverse the finding of a trial judge even on the question of credibility, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
