Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 804 (ALL)

Jhinki and Others v. Bablu @ Ram Singh

2013-03-13

ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, RAFCESH TIWARI

body2013
Anil Kumar Sharma, J.— Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned award. The appellants have challenged the award dated 4.12.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Addl. District Judge, Azamgarh in MACP No. 33 of 1998, whereby the claim petition of the appellants had been dismissed. It appears that on 25.1.1998 deceased Barkhoo along with his daughter was returning home after grazing his sheeps when at about 7.00 p.m. he reached near petrol pump of Rajadepur within the circle of P.S. Jianpur, District Azamgarh, the driver of jeep no. MHO 6/9993 driving the vehicle rashly and negligently knocked down the deceased from behind causing him fatal injuries and subsequently he did during treatment. It was alleged that 45 years old deceased was earning Rs. 3000/- per month from agriculture and animal husbandry. Claim petition was filed against Bablu @ Ram Singh son of Kedar Singh, r/o village Harkhori, P.S. Jianpur, District Azamgarh as owner and driver of the aforesaid vehicle. The opposite party/respondent denied the factum of accident as also the ownership of the aforesaid vehicle stating that the claimant belonged to his village and on account of village partybandi a false report after three days of the alleged accident had been lodged against him. The claimants examined Smt. Jhinki (claimant no.1) and Nageena in support of their contention, while the opposite party examined himself as DW1. After hearing the parties counsel and considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, holding that the claimants could not examine any eye witness of the accident and as such they could not prove that the accident had taken place with jeep no. MHO 6/9993 and consequently the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved the claimants have come up in appeal. On perusal of the award, we find that the claimants/appellants have examined Km. Nageena as eye witness of the accident, who has stated that she is illiterate and could not read the registration number of the jeep. Even in the FIR the registration number of the offending vehicle or the name of the driver was not mentioned. The Tribunal has further held that the claimants have not examined any person who had witnessed the accident and read the registration number of the jeep. It is significant to note that the opposite party is resident of the village of the claimant, so if Km. The Tribunal has further held that the claimants have not examined any person who had witnessed the accident and read the registration number of the jeep. It is significant to note that the opposite party is resident of the village of the claimant, so if Km. Nageena was present at the scene of accident, then she must have recognized the respondent as driver of the offending jeep. In this way the claimants have failed to prove that the respondent driving his alleged jeep MHO 6/9993 rashly and negligently had knocked down the deceased from behind. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in the criminal case pertaining to this accident, the Court has rejected the final report submitted by the police and as such the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the opposite party in the claim petition. We do not agree with this contention. The rejection of final report submitted by the police in the criminal case, pertaining to the accident in question has nothing to do with the claim petition pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver is sina-qua-non to sustain a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim petition is to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties in the case before the Tribunal. If the police submits charge sheet against any person allegedly involved in the motor accident, then without any other cogent and reliable ocular evidence, it can not be concluded by the Tribunal in a claim petition under section 166 Motor Vehicles Act that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle by that person. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we find that the Tribunal has not erred in dismissing the claim petition of the claimants/appellants. The appeal sans merit and is dismissed accordingly. _____________