Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 215 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Sita Devi

2013-02-13

JYOTI SARAN

body2013
JUDGMENT : Jyoti Saran, J. 1. C.R. No. 1187 of 2008 is directed against the order dated 12.11.2007 passed by the Tribunal on the application filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 25.5.2007. Misc. Appeal No. 387 of 2008 is directed against the judgment and award dated 25.5.2007 passed by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-IV)-cum-Presiding Officer, Accidents Claims Tribunal, Darbhanga in a matter arising from Claim Case No. 66 of 2004 whereby learned Tribunal has been pleased to award compensation to the claimant-opposite party No. 1 in exercise of power vested under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') of Rs. 50,000 together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant before the Tribunal is a resident of Darbhanga and filed the claim case alleging that while her husband was sitting at his doorsteps, a truck bearing registration No. BR 1-B 4661 came at a high speed and crushed her husband at 10 p.m. on 12.7.2004 and as a consequence her husband died. The F.I.R. was instituted giving rise to Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 132 of 2004. The applicant-opposite party No. 1, Sita Devi, also filed the claim case in question which was heard by the Tribunal at Darbhanga and allowed by the order impugned in the miscellaneous appeal. 3. There is no dispute on the fact that the truck in question was not insured thus in normal circumstances, the owner thereof would have been liable for the compensation. It is the case of the owner-opposite party No. 2 that his truck was undergoing repair works in the garage and in view of the flood situation, was made to stand at a particular place when it was requisitioned by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 11.7.2004 for carrying out flood relief works. It is further the case of the owner that it is during the period of requisition that the alleged accident took place on 12.7.2004 at 10 p.m. 4. Although the State was represented through the Government Pleader before the Tribunal but no response was filed on their behalf and which has been taken note of by the learned Tribunal in the order impugned. 5. Although the State was represented through the Government Pleader before the Tribunal but no response was filed on their behalf and which has been taken note of by the learned Tribunal in the order impugned. 5. The learned Tribunal upon considering the rival contentions and taking note of the specific contention of the owner of the truck that it was requisitioned by the district authorities for the purpose of flood relief operations on 11.7.2004 and in the absence of any document submitted by the State authorities to prove to the contrary as also taking note of a letter bearing No. 530 dated 7.12.2004 of the Collector, Darbhanga, addressed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate which demonstrated that the truck in question was within the control of the district administration, has passed the order impugned directing the Collector, Darbhanga, to make payment of the claim amount under section 140 of the Act of Rs. 50,000 together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent. Following the order allowing the claim dated 25.5.2007 an application was filed by the Collector. Darbhanga, seeking a review of the order passed by the Tribunal, inter alia, on grounds that the order was passed without hearing them and which also has been rejected by the order dated 12.11.2007 questioned in C.R. No. 1187 of 2008. 6. I have heard Mr. Amit Bhushan, the learned A.C. to SC 6 on behalf of the appellant in the appeal and the petitioner in the civil revision application and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the owner-opposite party No. 2 in both the applications and have perused the materials on record. Though the applicant has appeared through counsel in both the applications, but there is no representation on her behalf. 7. The facts are not in dispute rather the only issue is as to who would be responsible for making payment of the claim amount and whether the claim amount is payable by the owner or the State. 8. Perusal of the order dated 25.5.2007 passed in the claim case manifests that the truck in question had been requisitioned by the district administration for carrying out flood relief works on 11.7.2004 and the accident took place on 12.7.2004, i.e., after the said requisition. 9. 8. Perusal of the order dated 25.5.2007 passed in the claim case manifests that the truck in question had been requisitioned by the district administration for carrying out flood relief works on 11.7.2004 and the accident took place on 12.7.2004, i.e., after the said requisition. 9. Although the State was represented through their counsel at the stage of hearing of the claim by the Tribunal and had also filed an application seeking review of the said order dated 25.5.2007, but nothing was brought on record by the State to dispel the statement made by the owner regarding requisitioning of the vehicle by the State. An issue has also been raised by the State that the State did not fall within the definition of owner as provided under section 2(30) of the Act. The contention is only taken for being rejected inasmuch as the owner includes all such persons who are in possession of a vehicle under an agreement or otherwise. The order passed by the Tribunal is in the light of the document available on record which includes a letter of the Collector, Darbhanga, dated 7.12.2004 stated to be manifestly demonstrating the requisitioning of the truck in question and which opinion of the Tribunal goes untrammelled. There being absolutely no contest on facts leading to the claim, in the circumstances noted, no interference is called for in the order impugned. The miscellaneous appeal and the civil revision application are accordingly dismissed.