Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 528 (MP)

National Insurance Company v. Santosh

2013-04-16

M.C.Garg

body2013
ORDER 1. By this appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant-Insurance Company has assailed the award of claim granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the respondent in a petition filed by the respondent under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation in an accident allegedly held on 29.1.2004 with a motor-cycle bearing No.M.P.11/BC-0452 in which the respondent sustained fracture in his left leg as well as the injuries on other part of the body. 2. According to the allegations, the respondent who suffered permanent disability, the appellant was made a party in that petition as insurer of the vehicle. The owner and driver did not contest the proceedings and were proceeded ex parte. However, the claim was contested by the appellant. 3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ in favour of the respondent and against the appellant as well as respondents No.1 and 2, who were arrayed as partyin that accidient claim because the liability was fixed jointly and severally. However, the award was met by the appellant the insurer of the offending vehicle. Even though the accident is dated 29.1.2004, the claim was filed by the respondent on 16.11.2004, i.e. after a period of 11 months. In the accident claim petition, the number of the offending vehicle was not mentioned. In fact the particulars of the FIR was also not mentioned. 4. The appellant contested the proceedings in their written statement. The appellant denied the liability as well as the involvement of the offending vehicle. In the accident claim petition, the number of the offending vehicle was not mentioned. In fact the particulars of the FIR was also not mentioned. 4. The appellant contested the proceedings in their written statement. The appellant denied the liability as well as the involvement of the offending vehicle. It was submitted that : ^^;g fd izfrdj vkosnu&i= pj.k dzekad vlR; gksus ls Lohdkj ugha gSA bl pj.k esa n’kkZ, vuqlkj dfFkr nq?kZVuk fnukad 29-1-2004 dks le; 7%45 cts LFkku xa/kokuh fpdyh eaMh jksM vlR; :i ls n’kkZdj dfFkr nq?kZVuk gksus ds laca/k esa vlR; dFku fd, gSaA tcfd bl LFkku o le; ,oa fnukad dks okgu M.P.11/BC-0452 ls dksbZ nq?kZVuk ?kfVr ugha gqbZ gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dks pksVsa vkus] LFkkbZ v;ksX;rk dkfjr gksus ,oa lcaf/kr vLirky esa mipkj gksus ,oa mipkj esa O;; yxus rFkk izkFkhZ dks {kfr igq¡pus dk iz’u gh iSnk ugha gksrk gSA okLro esa izkFkhZ Lo;a gh fdlh vKkr okgu dks rst xfr o ykijokgh ls pyk jgk gksus ds dkj.k Lo;a gh okgu ls fxj tkus ls mls ek= lk/kkj.k Lo:i dh pksV vkus ds i’pkr~ izkFkhZ o xksiky firk mnkth o jkds’k firk ek¡xhyky o jes’k firk dUgS;kyky o izkFkhZ ds vU; lg;ksxh O;fDr;ksa us izkFkhZ ds fe= ,oa ifjfpr O;fDr foi{kh dz-1 o 2 ls nqjfHklaf/k djds dfFkr nq?kZVuk fnukad 29-1-2004 ds yxHkx 8 ekg i’pkr~ fnukad 21-10-2004 dks vlR; dk;eh foi{kh dz-1 ds f[kykQ djokdj ek= vlR; izfrdj vkosnu is’k fd;k gS rFkk izkFkhZ dks mDr okgu eksVj lk;dy ls dksbZ pksVsa ;k ÝsDpj ugha vk;k gS vkSj izkFkhZ orZeku esa LoLFk gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr esa izkFkhZ ds izfrdj vkosnu&i= ds fy, foi{kh dz-3 chek daiuh {kfriwfrZ /kujkf’k ds Hkqxrku gsrq fdlh Hkh :i esa mRrjnk;h ugha gksdj ek= vKkr okgu Lokeh ,oa chek daiuh mRrjnk;h gS ftuds f[kykQ izkFkhZ us izfrdj vkosnu&i= djuk pkfg, vFkok vKkr okgu eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e ds rgr Jheku ftyk/kh’k ¼Jheku dyDVj egksn;½ ds le{k izfrdj vkosnu is’k dj lgk;rk dh ek¡x djuk pkfg,A bl dkj.k izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izfrdj vkosnu&i= izFken`”V~;k foi{kh dz-3 chek daiuh ds f[kykQ fujLruh; gS rFkk izkFkhZ us fdlh Hkh Lora= lk{khx.k ds ‘kiFki= is’k ugha fd, gSaA** 5. The Accident Claims Tribunal on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues : ^^dz- okn fo”k; fu”d”kZ 1- D;k ?kVuk fnukad 29-1-2004 dks 7%45 cts xa/kokuh fpdyh izekf.kr eaMh jksM ij vukosnd 1 us vukosnd dz-2 ds LokfeRo dk o vukosnu 3 ds ;gk¡ chfer okgu eksVj lk;dy dzekd M.P.11/BC-0452 dks rsth o ykijokghiwoZd pykdj vkosnd dks nq?kZVukxzLr fd;k \ 2- D;k mDr nq?kZVuk esa vkosnd LFkkbZ :i ls fu;ksZX; gks x;k \ izekf.kr 3- D;k mDr okgu dk pkyu chek ikWfylh dh ‘krksZa ds foijhr ugha fd;k x;k \ 4- D;k vkosnd] vukosndx.k ls la;qDr% o i`Fkd&i`Fkd :i ls ek= 1 yk[k izfriwfrZ jkf’k :- lkr yk[k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 20 gtkj 5- lgk;rk ,oa okn O;;A lafonk ,d yk[k chl gtkj dh lhek rd Lohd`rA** 6. Issue No.1 was decided as having been proved by the claimant i.e. the respondent, based upon the statement made by the driver of the vehicle in criminal proceedings which were initiated against him and the statement made by the respondent and one Rakesh. One of the reason given by the Tribunal was that since the owner and driver of the vehicle has not contested the claim and rather admitted the involvement of the vehicle in their defence in criminal Court, the involvement of the vehicle in this accident was established and, therefore, the appellant being insurer of the said vehicle they were liable to compensate the respondent-claimant. The relevant observations made by the Tribunal while awarding the claim in favour of the respondent and against the appellant with respect to issue No.1 which is based upon awarding compensation is reproduced hereunder : ^^vkosnd dh vksj ls mijksDr izdj.k esa gq, fu.kZ; dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi izn’kZ ih&28 dh izLrqr dh xbZ ftlds voyksdu ls vukosnd dz-1 us nq?kZVuk fnukad dks viuk okgu M.P.11/BC-0452 dks rsth ,oa ykijokghiwoZd pykdj xa/kokuh esa vkosnd larks”k dks xaHkhj pksV igq¡pkus dk vijk/k Lohdkj dj fy;k] ftl ij ls U;kf;d naMkf/kdkjh izFke Js.kh eukoj }kjk mls nafMr Hkh fd;k x;kA izdj.k esa izn’kZ ih&29 dh vkosnd larks”k dh ,e-,y-lh- rFkk izn’kZ ih&6 dk ,Dljk izLrqr fd;k x;k] tks fd ?kVuk fnukad 29-1-2004 dk gS vkSj ‘kkldh; fpfdRlky; xa/kokuh dk gS] ftldk voyksdu fd;k x;k voyksdu ls vkosnd ds Vhfc;kQhcwyk gM~Mh dk vfLFkHkax gksuk mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k esa izn’kZ ih&5 ds tIrh iapukes dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi izLrqr dh xbZ ftlds voyksdu ls okgu dz- M.P.11/BC-0452 vukosnd 3 ds ;gk¡ fnukd 29-1-2004 dj gSA bl rjg nq?kZVuk fnukad dks mijksDr okgu eksVj lk;dy uacj M.P.11/BC-0452 vuksond dz-3 ds ;gk¡ chfer gksuk Hkh i;k tkrk gSA tgk¡ rd vuksond 3 ds lk{kh eqds’k ¼v lk 1½ dk dFku gS fd ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ ?kVuk ds 266 fnu ckn Fkkus ij dh xbZA ijarq izn’kZ ih&2 dh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds voyksdu ls vukosnd dz-3 ds lk{kh eqds’k dk dFku Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA D;ksafd nq?kZVuk esa vkosnd dks pksVsa vkbZa] bl ckor dh lwpuk Fkkuk xa/kokuh ij ?kVuk fnukad 29-1-2004 dks gh nh xbZ rFkk ?kVuk fnukad dks gh vkosnd larks”k dh ,e-,y-lh- rFkk ,Dljk lkeqnkf;d LokLF; dsanz xa/kokuh ds gSaA blds vykok Hkh ?kVuk dk p{kqn’khZ lk{kh jkds’k Hkh vkosnd ds dFku dk leFkZu vius dFku esa djrk gSA blds mijkar izn’kZ ih&28 ds fu.kZ; }kjk vukosnd dz-1 us viuk okgu rsth rFkk ykijokghiwoZd pykdj vkosnd dks xaHkhj mifgr igq¡pk, tkus dk vijk/k Hkh U;kf;d naMkf/kdkjh izFke Js.kh eukoj ds U;k;ky; esa Lohdkj dj fy;k rks ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ?kVuk dh dksbZ lwpuk ?kVuk fnukad dks Fkkuk xa/kokuh ij ugha nh xbZA ?kVuk fnukad dks gh lwpuk nh xbZ] ftlds vk/kkj ij iqfyl us ckn tk¡p ;|fi vukosnd dz-1 ds fo:) nsj ls dk;eh dh gks rks ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd vkosnd dks nq?kZVuk esa pksVsa vkbZa ughaA D;ksafd ,e-,y-lh-] ,Dljs vkosnd ds ?kVuk fnukad ds gh gSa] ftuesa Hkh eksVj lk;dy ls ,DlhMsaV gksus ckor~ ds rF; mYysf[kr gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa vuksond 3 ds mijksDr lk{kh ds dFku dks Lohdkj fd;k ugha tk ldrkA blds vykok Hkh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; e-iz- }kjk fof/k HkkLoj 2003 ist uacj 8 esa ;g izfrikfnr fd;k x;k fd ^^mYya?kudkjh ;ku ds pkyd rFkk Lokeh nq?kZVuk dk o.kZu Li”V djus gsrq U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gq, ugha ----- nkosnkj dk o.kZu Lohdkj fd;k tk,xkA** bl izdj.k esa Hkh ,slh gh ifjfLFkfr;ka gSaA vukosnd dz-1] 2 izdj.k esa mifLFkr gq, ugha rFkk nkafMd izdj.k esa vukosnd dz-1 dh vijk/k LohdkjksfDr dks ns[krs gq,] rFkk vkosnd ds dFku dh iqf”V mlds }kjk nkafMd izdj.k ls yh xbZ izekf.kr izfr;ksa ls Hkh gksrh gS rFkk lk{kh jkds’k Hkh vkosnd ds dFku dk leFkZu djrk gSA** 7. Thus, the Tribunal clearly overlooked the testimony of the witnesses produced on behalf of the appellant by holding that since the driver had admitted his liability in the criminal prosecution, the testimony of the witnesses produced by the appellant was of no consequence. 8. The Tribunal completely overlooked the plea taken by the appellant that whole case was concocted. It was a collusion matter in which the owner and driver mixed up with the respondent for the purpose of fastening the liability on the Insurance Company even though, the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and it is for that reason neither the number of the vehicle was mentioned by the claimant in any of the medical document nor they lodged any FIR of the accident. The Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that the FIR was belated by at least 266 days. It was against one Feroz, the driver who was neighbour of the claimant and as such possibility of collusion could not have been ruled out. 9. The appellant has submitted that first information report of the alleged incident has been lodged almost after 266 days of the alleged incident and respondents No.2 and 3 who are known to respondent No.1 and are residing in the same area have colluded to fasten the liability on the appellant for the accident which was caused otherwise, which is evident from the fact that alleged accident is dated 29.1.2004 and on 29.1.2004, the applicant respondent No.1 goes to the hospital from where intimation is given to the police in which it has only been mentioned that respondent No.1 came to the hospital in an accident involving motorcycle and has suffered fracture of tibia fibula bone. Meaning thereby, that immediately after the accident intimation was given to the police and if insured vehicle had caused the accident then there was no reason for the police not to have registered offence immediately. Even in report there is no disclosure of number of the offending vehicle. 10. It is also the case of the appellant that : (1) alleged accident being dated 29.1.2004, offence was registered on 21.10.2004 and after completing all the formalities final challan was also filed on 31.10.2004. Even in report there is no disclosure of number of the offending vehicle. 10. It is also the case of the appellant that : (1) alleged accident being dated 29.1.2004, offence was registered on 21.10.2004 and after completing all the formalities final challan was also filed on 31.10.2004. On 1.11.2004 driver appears before the criminal Court accepts its guilt and conveniently proceeded ex parte before the learned Tribunal, the conduct of the driver further confirms that accident which was caused by some unknown motorcycle was converted into an accident in which duly insured motorcycle has been implicated. Alleged eye-witness if had seen the accident then there was no reason for him not to have disclosed the number of the offending vehicle before the learned Tribunal. (2) The appellant also proved that driver driving the motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence for driving the motorcycle and further the witness who investigated into the case was examined and he had submitted his report showing false implication of the insured vehicle. (3) That the learned Tribunal merely based upon the admission made by the driver before the criminal Court has held the accident involving the insured vehicle but has not considered collusion between the applicant that of the owner and driver implicating the insured vehicle and has even not discussed the evidence minutely justifying registration of FIR late by 266 days as no explanation has been offered for such a late FIR. 11. During the course of submission made on behalf of the appellant, it is also stated that the appellant was a third respondent in this case. Since respondents No.1 and 2 did not contest the proceedings of the defence available with the respondents No.1 and 2, was available with the third respondent. It is not a case that during the accident claim proceedings, the liability was admitted by the owner which may have some binding affect on the stand of the appellant. In fact, the very fact that respondents No.1 and 2 did not take any care to contest the proceedings, the appellant became entitled to take all the defence including the defence of collusion, but opposed the claim. In fact, the very fact that respondents No.1 and 2 did not take any care to contest the proceedings, the appellant became entitled to take all the defence including the defence of collusion, but opposed the claim. Infact to prove his collusion of non-involvement of the offending vehicle in this case, the appellant examined their Investigator, who appeared in the witness box and deposed as under : ^^eSa us’kuy bU’;ksjsal daiuh bankSj esa fu;qfDr ij Dyse izdj.k dz-177@04 esa vuqla/kku dk;Z esjs }kjk fd;k x;k FkkA bl izdj.k dk vuqla/kku esjs }kjk fd;k x;k gSA esjh vuqla/kku fjiksVZ ?kVuk ls lcaf/kr QkStnkjh isij vkSj izkIr tkudkjh ds vk/kkj ij esjs }kjk is’k dh xbZ gSA eSaus mijksDr izdj.k vukosnd dz-1 fQjkst firk lqyseku ds yk;lsal dk lR;kiu vkosnu nsdj vkj-Vh-vks- dk;kZy; /kkj ls fd;k FkkA vukosnd dz-1 dk tkjh yk;lsal esa flQZ gYdk eksVj ;ku pykus dh ik=rk gSA vukosnd dz-1 dks eksVjlk;dy pykus dh ik=rk ugha gSA eSaus izkFkhZ larks”k firk dUgS;kyky ‘kekZ ds c;ku fy, FksA eSaus viuh vuqla/kku fjiksVZ izn’kZ Mh&1 dh bl izdj.k esa is’k dh gS ftl ij , ls , Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSaA yk;lsal lR;kiu dh fjiksVZ Hkh esjs }kjk is’k dh xbZ gS tks izn’kZ Mh&2 dh gS ftl ij Hkh , ls , Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSaA vkj-Vh-vks- dk;kZy; esa iSls tek fd, Fks mldh jlhn izn’kZ Mh&3 dh gSA vukosnd dz-1 ds yk;lsal dk lR;kiu izn’kZ Mh&4 dk is’k gSA yk;lsal osjhfQds’ku dk vkosnu izn’kZ Mh&5 dk gSA vkosnd larks”k firk dUgS;kyky ds dFku esjs }kjk fy, x, Fks ftlds dFku esjs }kjk is’k fd, x, gSa og izn’kZ Mh&6 gSA esjs vuqla/kku ds vuqlkj ?kVuk dh iqfyl fjiksVZ nq?kZVuk ds 266 fnu ckn dh xbZ gSA ckdh tks vU; lHkh fu”d”kZ iqfyl }kjk cuk, x, QkStnkjh izdj.k ij vk/kkfjr gSaA esjs erkuqlkj vkosnd us ftl eksVjlk;dy ls nq?kZVuk gksuk crk;k gS mlls ugha gksdj vU; fdlh ?kVuk esa vkosnd dks pksV vkbZ gSA izfrijh{k.k vkosnd dh vksj ls Jh [kaMsyoky ,MoksdsV }kjk % ;g dguk lgh ugha gS fd eSa flQZ us’kuy bU’;ksjsal daiuh dk vuqla/kku djrk gw¡A ;g ckr lgh gS fd losZ djus dh gedks Qhl feyrh gSA bl dsl esa esjs dks vHkh Qhl ugha feyh gSA Lor% dgk fd vuql/kku djus dh yxHkx 500@& :- Qhl feyrh gSA lHkh feykdj ,d dsl ds yxHkx 1200&1300@& :- fey tkrs gSaA bankSj ls xa/kokuh yxHkx 160 fdyksehVj gSA eSa vuqla/kku ds fy, eksVjlk;dy ls tkrk gw¡A vkosnd xa/kokuh esa ljdkjh vLirky ds ikl jgrk gSA ge daiuh esa vUos”k.k fjiksVZ nks izfr esa is’k djrs gSa o izdj.k esa tks izfr;ka is’k dh xbZ gSa og bl izdj.k ls lacaf/kr vUos”k.k fjiksVZ dh izfr gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd esjs vUos”k.k fjiksVZ esa vafre iSjk ij esjs gLrk{kj gSaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSaus larks”k vkosnd ds dFku ugha fy, FksA ;g ckr lgh gS fd bl izdj.k esa esjs }kjk vkosnd ds dFku dh QksVks dkWih is’k dh xbZ gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd vkj-Vh-vks- vkWfQl esa vUos”k.k yk;lsal dk ugha djok;kA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ykbZV eksVj Oghdy ,oa eksVjlk;dy dk ,d yk;lsal curk gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ykbZV eksVj Oghdy ds }kjk eksVjlk;dy o dkj nksuksa pyk ldrk gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjs }kjk dsl dk dksbZ vuqla/kku ugha fd;k FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjs }kjk tks fjiksVZ vUos”k.k laca/kh is’k dh gS og xyr is’k dh gSA** 12. There is no cross-examination of this witness which may contradict his statement or prove him to be false witness. Now coming to the document placed on record by the third respondent, I find that despite the appellant having gone through atleast 3 medical institutions in none of the MLC/discharge certificate prepared by the medical doctors there is mention of the number of the offending vehicle. 13. Coming to the statement of the first respondent, even in his statement recorded by the Tribunal, the claimant has not given the number of the motorcycle which caused accident. He further stated that the motorcycle was driven by Feroz who admitted was neighbour, yet neither his name was given to the medical authorities nor to the police, when the accident took place or immediately thereafter. Paragraph 7 of his cross-examination is relevant which is reproduced hereunder : ^^fQjkst esjs ?kj ls ,d fdyksehVj dh nwjh ij jgrk gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd fQjkst esjs gh eksgYys esa gh jgrk gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd fQjkst esjs ?kj ds rhu&pkj ?kj NksM+dj jgrk gSA ;g lgh gS fd eSa fQjkst dks igys ls tkurk gw¡ D;ksafd og xk¡o dk jgus okyk gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd fQjkst us esjs dks dksbZ VDdj ugha ekjh FkhA xksiky esjs ?kj ls 15&20 ?kj NksM+dj jgrk gSA Lor% dgk fd mldk [ksr Hkh m/kj gh gSA ftl le; ?kVuk gqbZ Fkh rks esjs dks Fkkus ij ugha ys x, FksA eSaus MkWDVj dks ;g crk fn;k Fkk fd esjs dks fQjkst us eksVjlk;dy ls VDdj ekjh gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd esjs ?kj okys esjs iq= vLirky v, x, FksA MkWDVj dks lwpuk ns nh Fkh fd ;g ,DlhMsaV gqvk gS tks eksVjlk;dy ls gqvk gSA geus fQjkst dh eksVjlk;dy dk uacj Hkh xksiky vkSj MkWDVj dks crk fn;k FkkA** 14. In the light of the aforesaid deposition of the respondent, it becomes doubtful as to why the number of the vehicle which was being driven by the neighbour was not given at the time of informing about the accident to the police. The only irresistible conclusion which comes to the mind of anyone would be that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. 15. Dr. The only irresistible conclusion which comes to the mind of anyone would be that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. 15. Dr. Mahesh Agrawal is the second witness on behalf of the appellant, who has treated the respondent for the fracture injury caused on his person and infact he also operated the respondent byinception of rod because of the fracture. The important aspect of his statement is his cross-examination. Before referring to it, it may be seen that the respondent had approached this doctor after about four months of the accident. Now I may refer to his cross-examination. Paragraph 5 is important which is reproduced hereunder : ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd larks”k&vkosnd dks pyus&fQjus esa gh rdyhQ Fkh] ns[kus lquus esa dksbZ rdyhQ ugha FkhA ;g ckr lgh gS fd esjs ;gk¡ ij vkosnd dk bykt fnukad 14-4-2004 rd pyk Fkk rc rd vkosnd esjs ;gk¡ ij vkrk tkrk jgkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd vkosnd dks ftl izdkj dk ÝsDpj gS bl izdkj dk ÝsDpj eksVjlk;dy ls fxjus ls vkuk laHko gSA ,e-,y-lh- gksus ds ckn vkosnd dk bykt esjs }kjk gh fd;k x;k FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd vkosnd ftl le; esjs ikl vk;k Fkk ml le; mlus eq>dks ,DlhMsaV gksuk crk;k FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd vkosnd us esjs dks ;g ugha crk;k Fkk fd og Lo;a eksVjlk;dy ls fxjk gS ;k vU; eksVjlk;dy ls ,DlhMsaV gqvk FkkA esjs ikl vkosnd fnukad 29-1- 2004 ls 2 -2-2004 rd HkrhZ jgk ftlesa Ldzw fudkyk x;k vkSj Mªsflax dh xbZA ;g dguk xyr gS fd vkosnd ftl le; esjs ikl bykt ds fy, vk;k Fkk ml le; mls ‘kqxj Fkh] o gkVZ dk is’ksaV FkkA** 16. One more witness of whose testimony the respondent relied upon and whose statement has been taken in support of conclusion drawn by the Claims Tribunal fastening the liability of compensation upon the appellant is the deposition of Rakesh again a neighbour of the respondent as well as Feroz, the driver. One more witness of whose testimony the respondent relied upon and whose statement has been taken in support of conclusion drawn by the Claims Tribunal fastening the liability of compensation upon the appellant is the deposition of Rakesh again a neighbour of the respondent as well as Feroz, the driver. His entire statement is relevant, which is reproduced hereunder : ^^eSa vkosnd larks”k ,oa Mªk;oj vukosnd dz-1 fQjkst dks igpkurk gw¡A ?kVuk vkt ls yxHkx nks lky igys dh gSA eSa lqcg&lqcg ?kweus ds fy, tkrk gw¡A eSa tc ?kwe dj okfil vk jgk Fkk rks xa/kokuh fpdyh eaMh jksM ij vkosnd larks”k dks vukosnd dz-1 us eksVjlk;dy dh rst ,oa ykijokghiwoZd pykdj VDdj lkeus ls ekj nh Fkh] ftlls larks”k ogk¡ uhps fxj x;k Fkk vkSj pksV yxus ls mldk iSj ÝsDpj gks x;k FkkA pksV yxus ls ‘kjhj esa vU; txg ij Hkh vkosnd dks pksV vkbZ FkhA mlds ckn eSa ogk¡ ij vius ?kj ij pyk x;k FkkA mlds ckn eq>dks dqN Hkh ekywe ughaA izfrijh{k.k vukosnd dz-3 dh vksj ls fot; xqIrk vf/koDrk }kjk % eSa vkosnd dks vPNh rjg ls tkurk gw¡A eSa Hkkjr firk jes’kpanz vukosnd dz-2 dks tkurk gw¡A ;g ckr lgh gS fd larks”k ds edku ds ikl gh ljdkjh nok[kkuk vkSj Fkkuk gSA Lor% dgk fd FkksM+h nwj ij gSA esjs dks ;g irk ugha gS nq?kZVuk ds fnu dkSu&lk fnu FkkA esjs dks xkM+h dk uacj ugha ekywe gSA Lor% dgk fd xkM+h ckDlj FkhA vkosnd larks”k esjk dqN ugha yxrk gSA Lor% dgk fd eSa yksgkj gw¡A esjk vkosnd ls dksbZ ysu&nsu ugha gSA eSa nks&pkj lky ls ?kweus tkrk gw¡A nq?kZVuk ds le; yxHkx 20 QhV dh nwjh ij FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd fQjkst dks ogha ij idM+ fy;k FkkA Lor% dgk fd fQjkst VDdj ekjdj ogk¡ ls Hkkx x;k FkkA nq?kZVuk ds ckn eSa larks”k ds ikl x;k FkkA mlds i’pkr~ eSa ogk¡ ls pyk x;k FkkA vkSj larks”k ogha ij iM+k gqvk FkkA eSaus nq?kZVuk ds ckn Fkkus ij dksbZ fjiksVZ ntZ ugha djokbZ FkhA nq?kZVuk ds fdrus fnu ckn iqfyl us esjs c;ku fy, Fks ;g esjs dks ekywe ugha gSA esjs dks ;g Hkh ekywe ugha gS fd fdrus ekg o fdrus lky ckn iqfyl us esjs c;ku fy, FksA nq?kZVuk ds ckn Hkh iqfyl dks esjs }kjk dksbZ lwpuk ugha nh xbZ FkhA vkt xokg ds fy, eSa Lo;a gh U;k;ky; esa vk;k gw¡A esjs dks vkosnd cksyus vk;k Fkk fd eukoj xokg nsus tkuk gS rks eSa vk;k gw¡A ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSaus dksbZ ?kVuk ugha ns[kh Fkh vkSj vkosnd ds dgus ls vkt vlR; dFku nsus vk;k gw¡A** 17. In view of the evidence which has come on record and applying the theory of the preponderance probabilities, the conclusion drawn by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in holding that the accident occurred because of the involvement of the offending vehicle cannot be sustained. The logic that since the owner and driver was ex parte, the statement given by the witnesses on behalf of the Insurance Company could not have been accepted is again wrong on law because if the owner decide not to contest the proceedings, it cannot be said that the defence available with the owner cannot be taken up by the insurer. 18. In these circumstances, I hold that the award given by the Tribunal against the appellant cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with a direction to the respondent to pay back the claim amount to the appellant along with interest @ 6% from the date of this judgment. ............