Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 197 (MP)

Nandkumar Dwivedi v. Nawab Mohd.

2004-02-26

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2004
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed by the III Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna, in Claim Case No. 8/95 dated 8.1.1996, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The case of the claimant-respondent No.1 before the tribunal was that on 3.3.1995 at about 1 p.m. he was going on cycle. At Katra Mohalla, a jeep bearing registration No. MIA 133 dashed him as a result of which he sustained fracture of both the legs. He filed an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and claimed compensation of Rs. 7,21,000/- under various heads. The appellant submitted his reply and contended that on the date of accident he was not the owner of the said jeep and only on 20.3.1995 he purchased the jeep from the respondent No.2 and got it transferred in his name and, therefore, he cannot be made liable for the compensation. The respondent No.2 submitted his reply and his plea was that he sold the jeep to the appellant on 5.7.1993 and delivered the possession to him on that day itself and, therefore, for any accident which is said to have taken place on 3.3.1995, it is the appellant who is solely liable. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the tribunal framed issues and recorded the evidence. The tribunal found the accident to be proved and held the claimant to be entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 30,000/- from the appellant as well as the respondent No.2 and 3 jointly and severally. Being aggrieved of this, the present appellant has filed this appeal. Heard Shri Atulanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Mamta Bill ore, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Anil Khaskalam, learned counsel for respondent No.2. None appeared for the respondent No.3 driver. Perused record. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the finding of the tribunal holding that the accident occurred by the jeep No. MIA 133 is perverse. He further submitted that from the evidence on record the occurrence of the accident is not proved and false case has been filed by the claimant. He also submitted that the appellant having purchased the said jeep on 20.3.1995, he cannot be made liable for the accident which took place prior to it. He further submitted that from the evidence on record the occurrence of the accident is not proved and false case has been filed by the claimant. He also submitted that the appellant having purchased the said jeep on 20.3.1995, he cannot be made liable for the accident which took place prior to it. Shri Anil Khaskalam, learned counsel for respondent No.2, has submitted that the respondent No.2 had sold the vehicle to the appellant on 5.7.1993 and also delivered possession to him. The appellant failed to transfer the same up to 20.3.1995 and for his fault the respondent No.2 cannot be made responsible. Ms. Mamta Billore, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that there is ample evidence to hold that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle bearing registration No. MIA 133. She further submitted that the appellant and the respondent No. 2 cannot be absolved from the joint and several liability in the facts of the case as found proved by the tribunal. Sattar Mohd. (AW 1), father of the claimant, has deposed that when his son was going to market on cycle, he was dashed by a jeep. He did not mention number of the jeep in his deposition. In cross-examination he has admitted that he lodged the report of the accident after 11 days on 14.3.1985. In the said report lodged by him, the vehicle is described as a truck. In his deposition he has mentioned it to be a jeep. Except the evidence of father of the claimant who is not the eye witness of the accident, there is no other evidence on record to prove the accident. Admittedly, the accident occurred in the market area but no eye witness has been examined. In the letter Ex. P-3 addressed to the Station House Officer of Police Station, Rampur, Sattar Mohd. (AW1) has stated that after the accident when the driver was trying to escape, various persons including one Wahid stopped and detained the vehicle. Strangely Wahid was also not examined. Sattar Mohd. (AW 1) has deposed that he was in the mosque when the accident took place and thus admittedly he was not the eye witness of the accident. The claimant was also not examined. Strangely Wahid was also not examined. Sattar Mohd. (AW 1) has deposed that he was in the mosque when the accident took place and thus admittedly he was not the eye witness of the accident. The claimant was also not examined. The Claims Tribunal, without considering all these aspects of the matter, merely because the vehicle was seized on 21.3.1995 from the possession of the appellant and criminal case is pending against him, recorded the finding that the accident occurred by the said vehicle. In my considered opinion, this finding of the tribunal is perverse. The tribunal has failed to consider that it is for the claimant to prove the occurrence of the accident. There is absolutely no evidence to connect the jeep No. MIA 133 with the. alleged accident. In the first information report, the description of the jeep is mentioned as truck. The claimant was not examined. No eye witness of the alleged accident was produced. In such circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused by jeep No. MIA 133 is based upon no evidence and is liable to be set aside. In this view of the fact that the occurrence of the accident by the said Jeep is not proved it is not necessary for this Court to go into the other points raised in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned award is set aside. No order as to costs.