(1.) AS per claim appellant 1890 on 18. 6. 1997 between Dewas and had been travelling in jeep No. MP 13-C Borsali. Due to the negligent driving by Samundar Singh, respondent No. 1, the jeep had overturned and the appellant had sustained injuries and was taken to Shajapur Government Hospital and from there to Dewas Hospital where he had remained admitted between 19. 6. 1997 and 8. 7. 1997. He was admitted once again to Dewas Hospital on 20. 10. 1997 and 1. 12. 1997 and continued in hospital till 8. 2. 1998. He reported the matter to police on 23. 6. 1998 vide Exh. P-1 and thus, an offence under sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by police against him and after due investigation a criminal case was filed against Samundar Singh, the respondent No. 1. Samundar Singh was arrested on 26. 9. 1998 vide Exh. P-8. MLC report Exh. P-4 dated 13. 6. 1998 noted healing ulcers on right thigh with bony tenderness. Report Exh. P-9 has shown old fracture with callus formation in the right thigh. The claim was filed on 3. 11. 1998.

(2.) SAMUNDAR Singh, respondent No. 1 and his father Pirulal, respondent No. 2 in their written statement denied the accident and claimed that the appellant had gone with Mansingh and Hatesingh in some marriage, they had consumed liquor and quarrelled among themselves and the appellant was injured in such quarrel. It was claimed that the appellant had not travelled in the offending jeep on 18. 6. 1997. Thus, the claim was denied totally. Insurance company, respondent No. 3, also denied the accident and negligence of Samundar Singh, the respondent No. 1. According to him the claim was inflated and Samundar Singh, respondent No. 1 had no valid driving licence to drive the jeep.

(3.) AFTER recording of evidence the Tribunal disbelieved Manoj Malviya, AW 1 and Mansingh, AW 3 and relying upon the statement of Samundar Singh, DW 1 held the claim not proved. Main ground taken had been that the matter was not reported to police immediately and F. I. R. was not lodged by the appellant for a year. Thus, the claim was dismissed.

(4.) BOTH the advocates heard. The learned advocate for appellant has vehemently argued that the claim could not have been dismissed merely because no reporting had been there. It is noteworthy that both Manoj Malviya, AW 1 and Mansingh, AW 3 had proved the accident and Samundar Singh, NAW 1 had hesitatingly admitted that there had been an accident while he was driving the jeep and the claimant-appellant had been seriously injured in such accident. In view of such admission the depositions of Manoj Malviya, AW 1 and Mansingh, AW 3 could not be disbelieved by the learned Tribunal below. It is true that F. I. R. , a report to police, is a very important corroborating and supporting the evidence and late F. I. R. may effect the reliability of a witness yet it is not substantive piece of evidence. [laxmi Gontiya v. Nand Lal Tahalramani, 1999 ACJ 241 (MP) and Nasib v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 283 [LQ/SC/1971/415] ]. However, even if such F. I. R. is late the court can still act and rely on depositions on oath of the eyewitnesses. It is noteworthy that there has been ample supporting evidence in the shape of medical bills/prescriptions Exh. P-5 dated 19. 6. 1997, Exh. P-2 dated 10. 10. 1997 and Exh. P-3 dated 1. 12. 97 with several bills and vouchers for purchase of medicines, etc. , which go to show that the appellant had been injured on 18. 6. 1997 and was being treated in hospital. Hesitating admissions of Samundar Singh, respondent No. 1 have been clinching on the point. The theory of violence in the written statement by Samundar Singh, the respondent No. 1 and his father has been given up in evidence. It is noteworthy that there had been no report of any quarrel or inebriated orgy wherein appellant could have sustained injuries. Thus, arguments of learned advocate for appellant had force in it. It is well proved on evidence on record that the appellant had been injured in a vehicular accident. Certainly, rule of res ipsa loquitur applied to the present case and Samundar Singh, respondent No. 1 had been guilty of negligence in driving the jeep.

(5.) APPELLANT had suffered a fracture of right femur and had undergone a very long treatment. He had remained admitted first in Shajapur Hospital then at Dewas Hospital for about a fortnight then once again in Dewas Hospital for about 3 months. He has submitted several bills and vouchers for purchase of medicines and expenses incurred in treatment Exhs. P-15 to P-23 and P-24 to P-39. Certainly, he is entitled to Rs. 10,000 as medical or treatment expenses incurred by him. He is entitled to get Rs. 10,000 for physical and mental pain and suffering suffered by him during the period of long treatment. He is entitled to Rs. 3,000 for special diet, Rs. 3,000 for cost of attendant and additional Rs. 15,000 for loss of wages for the period of treatment for the total disability and Rs. 20,000 for partial permanent disability resulting in loss of earning capacity and diminution in enjoyment of ordinary amenities of life. In all totalling to Rs. 61,000 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum since the date of claim, i. e. , 3. 11. 1998.

(6.) IT is noteworthy that even though the offending jeep was insured by National Insurance Co. Ltd. , respondent No. 3, yet admission that the same was being driven by Samundar Singh, respondent No. 1 who had no valid driving licence on the date of accident, i. e. , on 18. 6. 1997 and he obtained his driving licence only on 1. 7. 1997. Thus, the jeep was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and insurance company, respondent No. 3 has to be exonerated.

(7.) THUS, this appeal is partly allowed. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall pay Rs. 61,000 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum since the date of claim, i. e. , 3. 11. 1998 to the date of payment. Costs as per schedule. Insurance company, respondent No. 3 is however exonerated.