Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1479 (RAJ)

Kailash Chand Meena v. Natthu Singh Meena

2010-08-17

DALIP SINGH

body2010
Hon'ble SINGH, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant, who is the claimant, against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track No.6), Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 27.02.2009 in claim case No.954/2006 filed by the appellant-claimant, which has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 3. This Court vide order dated 29th May, 2009 had issued notice to the insurance-company while staying the recovery of the amount paid under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of the no-fault-liability which was ordered to be recovered by the learned Tribunal, as the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claim filed by the appellant was a false one. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has strongly contested the matter and has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a serious error of law in holding that the claim was a false one merely on the ground that there was a delay of about six months in filing of the F.I.R. Inasmuch as, the accident occurred on 27.02.2005 and the First Information Report was lodged on 02.08.2005. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance-company supported the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and has taken the Court through the contents of the award and more particularly the reason given in Para 15 of the same. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the award of the learned Tribunal. 7. The learned Tribunal has given specific reasons for disbelieving the version of the claimant with regard to the manner in which the accident is said to have occurred and the reasons for rejecting the claim application. 8. Interalia the reasons given by the learned Tribunal are that there is a delay of about six months in lodging of the F.I.R. The accident is said to have occurred on 27.02.2005 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 02.08.2005. The accident is said to have occurred while the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on the motor vehicle being driven by the respondent No.1 Nathu Singh. 9. The learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence that Nathu Singh was a close relative previously known to the claimant. 10. The accident is said to have occurred while the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on the motor vehicle being driven by the respondent No.1 Nathu Singh. 9. The learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence that Nathu Singh was a close relative previously known to the claimant. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that so far as Nathu Singh is concerned, in the reply to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 the owner of the motor vehicle had disclosed the name of Nathu Singh as the person, who was driving the motor-cycle at the time of accident. 11. After the investigation was started on the F.I.R. lodged on 2.8.2005, the learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that Nathu Singh was charge-sheeted by the Police and as a consequence thereof was tried for the commission of the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. and was convicted vide judgment dated 1.10.2007 in a criminal case No.172/2005 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hindaun City. 12. Learned counsel placed before me the aforesaid judgment, which I have perused. 13. A look at the aforesaid judgment dated 01.10.2007 goes to show that while it is true that Nathu Singh has been convicted, but in the judgment, the learned trial Court has while passing the judgment of conviction and sentence observed as follows : ^^----------lkFk gh vfHk;qä }kjk LoSPNkiwoZd tqeZ Lohdkjksfä dj izkFkZuk is'k fd;k gS ,oa leLr QnkZr dks Lohdkj fd;k gS rFkk dksbZ lk{; lQkbZ is'k ugha djuk pkgk ,oa vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls izLrqr xokgku~ ds c;ku dks Hkh lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA vr% vfHk;kstu i{kd vfHk;qä ds fo:) vkjksfir vijk/k lansg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa lQy jgk gSA vr% vfHk;qä uRFkwflag iq= feJhyky dks /kkjk 279] 337] 338 Hkk-na-la- ds rgr n.Muh; vijk/k ds vkjksi esa nks"k fl) djkj fn;k tkrk gSA** 14. As a result of the aforesaid, the learned trial Court (Magistrate) sentenced the accused Nathu Singh to fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 279 I.P.C., for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C. to fine of Rs.300/- and for the offence under Section 338 I.P.C. to fine Rs.1000/-. Thus in all a sentence of Rs.1500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 20-days simple imprisonment. 15. Thus in all a sentence of Rs.1500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 20-days simple imprisonment. 15. It has also been ordered as per the aforesaid judgment that after the expiry of the period of limitation the aforesaid amount of Rs.1500/- be paid to the victim Kailash Chand, who is the appellant in the present miscellaneous appeal. 16. The manner in which the judgment of conviction of Nathu Singh has been passed, in my opinion, only strengthens the stand of the insurance-company that the whole case made out is a collusive one. 17. Apart from above, the learned Tribunal has come to the finding that the injury report of the appellant, Exhibit-4 has also been prepared on the request of the victim i.e. appellant herein and not on the request of the Police, despite the fact that it was said to be a case of Road Traffic Accident (R.T.A.) 18. The learned Tribunal has also come to the conclusion that the appellant Kailash was initially admitted to the hospital at Hindaun City and the document to that effect is Exhibit NA-7. The said document, which was the first one to be prepared on 27.02.2005 nowhere states that it was a case of a road accident. There was, therefore, sufficient material before the learned Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the present claim is a collusive one and the finding which has been arrived at are based upon the appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances, which were considered and the reasons given in Para 15 of the award cannot be said to be perverse. 19. In the facts and circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the tendency of false claims being filed merely to take compensation must be desisted. 20. It may also be stated herein that as per the claimant the accident occurred when the claimant along with Nathu Singh, respondent No.1 were going-on the motor cycle bearing registration No.RJ-14-49-M-8013 which was being driven by Nathu Singh, respondent No.1 and the claimant-appellant was a pillion rider. He stated that at around 8:30 P.M. about 1&1/2 Kms., from the Police Station Suroth the claimant and Nathu Singh, who was driving the motor cycle met with an accident head-on with an on coming vehicle, which hit them from the front. He stated that at around 8:30 P.M. about 1&1/2 Kms., from the Police Station Suroth the claimant and Nathu Singh, who was driving the motor cycle met with an accident head-on with an on coming vehicle, which hit them from the front. As such it was a head on collusion but the only person injured in the said accident was the claimant Kailash. There was evidence or material to show that Nathu Singh who was driving the vehicle at all suffered any injuries or what was the damage to the motor-cycle. 21. This is most unlikely. In a case head on collusion, when the driver of the motor-cycle, who is totally exposed would not received any injury whatsover and there would be no damage to the motor-cycle. This only negatives the fact of the accident in the manner alleged in the claim which has been filed and raises serious doubts on the same that it was filed on false ground. The police never came across any vehicle which is reported to have collided with the motor-cycle on which the appellant was travelling with Nathu Singh. 22. In the facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the claim petition or the order passed therein for recovery of the amount of Rs.25000/- which was paid to the claimant-appellant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 23. Accordingly, the miscellaneous appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed. 24. The stay application also stands dismissed. 25. There shall be no order as to costs.