Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1218 (RAJ)

Subhadra v. Dashrath Panchal

2014-05-26

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants claimants against the judgment dated 10.10.2013 passed by the learned Judge; Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kushalgarh in Claim Case No. 30/2010 whereby the claim application filed by the claimants appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation upon death of Mahaveer Singh in a road accident was rejected. 2. Facts in brief are that the claimants filed a claim application before the Tribunal with the averment that on 23.5.2009 the deceased Mahaveer Singh and his friend Gajendra Singh were proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration No. RJ 02/9M-2270 from Badodiya to Kushalgarh. A truck bearing registration No, RJ 27G-9786 being driven by its driver Kalu Singh in a rash and negligent fashion came from opposite direction and collided with the motor cycle driven by Mahaveer Singh resulting into injuries being caused to Mahaveer Singh and Gajendra Singh. Mahaveer Singh was taken to the Hospital and expired while undergoing treatment. An F.I.R. No. 109/2009 was registered at P.S. Kalinjara in relation to the accident. After investigation the police filed charge-sheet against Kalu Singh for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A I.P.C. and Section 134/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The claim application was filed impleading Dashrath Panchal, the owner of the truck, Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. the insurer, and Kalu Singh, the driver as non-claimants. It was pleaded in the claim application that the deceased was a Constable in police department and was drawing salary of Rs. 13,549/- per month at the time of his death. Total compensation of Rs. 69,77,000/- was claimed. 4. The respondent non-claimants No. 1 and 3 the owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed a joint reply admitting the averments of the claim application except to the extent of allegation of rash and negligent driving by the driver. It was specifically mentioned in the reply filed by the driver and owner that the truck was insured with the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company and so it was responsible to indemnify the claim. 5. The respondent No. 2 Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. The registration number and the insurance of the truck was admitted but the involvement of the truck in the accident was specifically denied. 6. 5. The respondent No. 2 Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim application. The registration number and the insurance of the truck was admitted but the involvement of the truck in the accident was specifically denied. 6. The learned Tribunal framed three issues for consideration viz. (1) As to whether Mahaveer Singh expired on 23.5.2009 as a result of the collision of his motor cycle and the truck No. RJ 27G-9786 by the rash and negligent driving of its driver Kalu Singh, (2) As to whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation as claimed; and (3) As to whether in view of the reply filed by the respondents, they are not liable to indemnify the claim? 7. The claimants examined Smt. Subhadra, the appellant No. 1 in support of the claim application. The non-claimants chose not to lead any evidence in defence. Learned Tribunal whilst deciding the issue No. 1 observed that the F.I.R. Ex.-1 which was registered on the following day of the occurrence bore no number of the offending vehicle rather it was mentioned that the accident was caused by an unknown truck. The police after initial investigation filed a negative final report as the identity of the vehicle with which the accident occurred could not be unearthed. Four months after the filing of the closure report, the investigation was reopened on the basis of some source information and thereafter a charge sheet was filed against the driver of the truck No. R] 27G-9786. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the only witness examined in support of the claim application i.e. Smt. Subhadra the wife of the deceased Mahaveer Singh was admittedly was not present at the scene of the occurrence at the time of the accident. No other eye witness was examined to substantiate the averments made in the claim application. The documents collected by the police during investigation were also considered by the Tribunal. Amongst these documents was the statement of Gajendra Singh who was accompanying the deceased on the fateful day. In the statement Ex.-15, Gajendra Singh admitted that the truck driver escaped taking advantage of darkness. He did not divulge the registration number of the truck to the Investigating Officer. Amongst these documents was the statement of Gajendra Singh who was accompanying the deceased on the fateful day. In the statement Ex.-15, Gajendra Singh admitted that the truck driver escaped taking advantage of darkness. He did not divulge the registration number of the truck to the Investigating Officer. The police also recorded the statement of one Dinesh after four months of the occurrence wherein he claimed to be Khalasi of the truck in question and admitted that the accident in question was caused by the truck No. RJ 27G-9786. The Tribunal observed that the version as given by Dinesh to the police was highly contradictory from the averments as set out in the claim application and the F.I.R. No marks of collision were observed by the I.O. while preparing the site inspection plan. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the facts mentioned in the claim application were not duly proved. The charge sheet Filed by the police against Kalu Singh the driver of the truck No. RJ 27G-9786 was without any justification and lacked any substantive evidence. Accordingly, the claim application was rejected for lack of evidence. The appellants have now approached this Court by way of the instant appeal challenging the rejection of the claim application. 8. I have heard Mr. Parikshit Nayak, learned Counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned judgment. 9. The Tribunal narrated the following facts for concluding that the claimants failed to lead material evidence to substantiate the claim:- 1. The F.I.R. was registered on the following day of the occurrence on the basis of the written report submitted by Gajendra Singh, the occupant of the motor cycle who was also a Constable posted at Police Station Badodiya. In the said report the clearly mentioned that the truck driver escaped taking advantage of the darkness. No number of the truck was mentioned in the written report. 2. Initial investigation resulted into a closure report in absence of the identity of the offending vehicle being discovered. In the said report the clearly mentioned that the truck driver escaped taking advantage of the darkness. No number of the truck was mentioned in the written report. 2. Initial investigation resulted into a closure report in absence of the identity of the offending vehicle being discovered. The matter was thereafter reopened on the basis of a source information and the charge-sheet was filed after nearly five months of the accident simply on the basis of the reply given by the truck owner to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein it was admitted that Kalu Singh was driving the truck when it met with the accident causing the death of Mahaveer Singh. 10. The said circumstances give rise to a reasonable belief that the whole story set out in the subsequent part of investigation which culminated into filing of charge-sheet was nothing but an attempt to involve the truck No. RJ 27G-9786 so as to provide an avenue to the claimants to succeed in the claim application and more particularly so that the liability could be fastened on the Insurance Company. The fact that the deceased was himself a Police Constable has a material bearing on the reason for reopening of the investigation. The Tribunal was also justified in observing that despite availability of two eye witness i.e. Dinesh (Khalasi of the truck) and Gajendra Singh, Constable who accompanied the deceased on the fateful day, none was examined in support of the claim. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal rejecting the claim application for lack of evidence is just and proper. 11. There cannot be two views except to hold that the claim application was filed by falsely implicating truck No. RJ 27G-9786 so as to succeed in getting the compensation from the Insurance Company. The collusive and conceding reply of the owner and driver of the truck also gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that the whole story was stage managed to facilitate the success of the claim application against the Insurance Company, 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion,, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal appreciated the material and the evidence available on record in a just and proper fashion and rightly rejected the claim application filed by the claimants. In view of the aforesaid discussion,, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal appreciated the material and the evidence available on record in a just and proper fashion and rightly rejected the claim application filed by the claimants. The impugned judgment cannot be said to be illegal, perverse or contrary to the evidence available on record so as to call for any interference in [his appeal.Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is rejected. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******