S.C. Mohapatra, J.
1. Insurer is appellant in this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. On 18.10.1988 at about 7.30 a.m. OSU 1954, a truck met with an accident on the National High way No. 5 near Chhatia. Claiming to be pedestrian who sustained injuries being dashed by the truck Claimant filed an application for compensation.
3. Owner of the truck did not contest. Insusrer resisted the claim on the ground that the vehicle did not dash against the claimant and he did not sustain any injury.
4. In support of his claim, claimant produced some OPD tickets of S.C.B. Medical College hospital. Orthopaedics Department marked as Exts. 1 to 1/4, a prescription of a private Doctor of Chhatia named Dr. Jagannath Das and a X-ray plate marked M.O.I. Certified copy of First Information Report was also produced which was marked as Ext. 2. Insurer produced photo copy of the Insurance policy marked as Ext. A.
5. Considering the aforesaid materials, Tribunal found that claimant sustained injuries being dashed by the truck causing accident negligently and is thus entitled to compensation of Rs. 12,000/- from the insurer since the risk of the owner was covered.
6. Since owner of the truck did not enter contest, insurer can challenge the facts not only before the Tribunal but also in appeal. Mr. M. Sinha, learned Counsel for the insurer-appellant accordingly, assailed fact of the claimant sustaining injuries as a result of the accident and the question of compensation.
7. Mr. Sinha produced before me certified copy of the charge-sheet against the driver and submitted that in the First Information Report claimant has not been mentioned to be one of the injured persons and in the charge-sheet also he has not been mentioned to a witness. From this circumstance Mr. Sinha submitted that claimant was not a victim of the accident. Mr. Sinha submitted that the documents produced ought not to be relied upon since some of them are suspicious in nature. The private Doctor of Chhatia has not been examined to prove the nature of injury and the X-ray plate does not relate to claimant.
8. There cannot be any doubt that on 18.10.88, the truck met with an accident. From the fact that the driver has been charge-sheeted after investigation, an inference can safely to drawn that the driver was negligent in driving the vehicle. Question for consideration is whether claimant sustained injuries and the nature of injury to determine the just ompensation.
9. Claimant filed the application on 16.11.88. Order sheet of the Tribunal discloses that by 23.2.1989 notice was served on the insurer. It had long two months time before filing written statement to cause an enquiry whether there was an accident of the truck within Chhatia P.S. In the written statement it remained satisfied by denying every assertion. Verification of the written statement indicates that the facts stated therein are based on record. No record has been produced before the Tribunal. Rather a copy of the policy was produced which indicates that denial to the effect that the vehicle was not insured with it is not correct. Perusal of evidence of P.W. I the claimant and P.W.2 an eyewitness leads to an inference that insurer was very casual and half hearted to contest the claim. On receipt of the notice, insurer could have contacted the owner to ascertain the ruth of assertion. From the owner it could have been ascertained if the vehicle was insured with it From office of the registering authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, the name of the insurer during the relevant period could have been ascertained. When claimant gave his address, insurer could have also contacted him before filing written statement denying all assertions. Insurer is a Government company. It is expected to be fair in its actions. I have a faint doubt that officers and other persons dealing with this proceeding before the Tribunal were half hearted and negligent. They depended too much on inferences than on facts. If the officer dealing with their claim would have been examined to explain how he was satisfied that claim of the complainant was not genuine, possibly the Tribunal would have given due weight to the reasonableness of the inference drawn.Even the witnesses examined were not properly cross-examined. I may observe that in case insurers remain alert and make timely investigations much of the proceedings before Tribunal could be avoided.
10. In the circumstances of this case, from the oral evidence adduced by P.Ws. 1 and 2 I am satisfied that claimant sustained injuries as a result of accident on account of negligent driving of the vehicle. P.W.1 has asserted the same and P.W.2 the eye-witness corroborated. There is no reason to disbelieve them in this case.
11. Coming to the nature of injuries, Ext. 2 could have been explained if the doctor would have been examined. Claimant who is to prove the injury sustained by him does not explain why he has not. examined the Doctor. No doubt, Ext. 1/2 the out-door ticket indicates that claimant sustained injury on right shoulder joint and was advised X-ray. X-ray plate produced docs not indicate that it relates to claimant. Every X-ray plate is supported by a report. Such report has not been produced and no explanation has been given why the same has been produced. Thus, an adverse inference can be drawn that if the Doctor would have been examined and the report of X-ray technician would have been produced, the nature of injury as claimed by claimant would have been found to be grossly magnified. Therefore, while finding that claimant sustained injuries on 18.10.1988, I am not able to determine the nature of injury sustained. However, the out-door tickets indicate the duration of treatment. From this make are as on able guess that claimant had suffering consisting of physical and mental pain, expenditure for treatment and loss of earning to the extent of Rs.6,000/-. Claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of application on Rs. 6,000/-.
12. In result, appeal is allowed in part. No costs. Amount of Rs. 6,000/- in deposit by he msurer in this Court be paid to claimant.