Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1774 (ALL)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kailashi

2014-05-29

MANOJ MISRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Manoj Misra,J. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The instant appeal has been filed by the insurer of Bus No. UP15-AT-0695 against the judgment and award dated 27.03.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Ghaziabad in M.A.C.P. No. 597 of 2010 by which a compensation of Rs. 2,79,000/- has been awarded to the claimant-respondent on death of Ramesh Chandra in a road accident dated 02.08.2007. 3. A perusal of the record reveals that as many as nine issues were framed by the Tribunal. The claimant had examined two witnesses, namely, P.W.1 (the widow of the deceased) and P.W.2 (Santosh), who was an eye-witness of the accident. Amongst others, the documents produced before the Tribunal were copy of the first information report, copy of the death certificate, copy of the registration certificate of the Bus involved in the accident, copy of the insurance policy, copy of the driving licence of Raj Kumar, who was alleged to be the driver of the Bus, copy of the permit of the Bus, copy of the fitness-certificate of the Bus, copy of the hospital bills, etc., copy of the site plan, copy of the post-mortem and copy of the charge-sheet prepared by the police pursuant to the investigation. No evidence either documentary or oral was produced from the side of the opposite parties including the appellant. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record as also the statement of P.W.2, came to the conclusion that the deceased Ramesh Chandra was hit by a roadways bus at about 9 PM on 02.08.2007, as a result of which, he suffered injuries for treatment of which he was rushed to the Hospital where he died on 23.08.2007. The medical treatment bills and all documents showing that he was admitted in the Hospital and was treated there were also brought on record. The post-mortem as also the inquest report disclosed that his death was on account of injuries suffered in an accident. The investigation, which resulted in charge-sheet, indicated that Raj Kumar was the driver of the Bus, which was involved in the accident. After taking a conspectus of the evidence brought on record, the Tribunal returned a finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus No. UP15-AT-0695. 5. The investigation, which resulted in charge-sheet, indicated that Raj Kumar was the driver of the Bus, which was involved in the accident. After taking a conspectus of the evidence brought on record, the Tribunal returned a finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus No. UP15-AT-0695. 5. Four issues were framed at the instance of the Insurance Company and they were issue nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Issue no. 3 was to the effect whether the vehicle was duly insured on which the Tribunal returned a finding that from the document brought on record i.e. the insurance policy, it was duly established that on the date of the accident, the vehicle was insured. On issue no. 4, the Tribunal returned a finding that from the documents brought on record, it was established that there was a valid permit for use of the vehicle as also that the driver held a valid driving licence. On issue nos. 5 and 7, the Tribunal observed that they were not pressed by the opposite parties. 6. Having decided all the issues in favour of the claimant-respondents, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 2,79,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the award on ground that the first information report was lodged with a delay of one year and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in law by returning a finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus insured with the appellant. The other submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the document, which was taken by the Tribunal as permit was, in fact, a letter from the Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Meerut disclosing that there was a permit. It has been submitted that since the actual permit document was not produced, therefore, the liability could not have been fastened on the Insurance Company. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has also applied for taking an additional evidence on record which is in the shape of an answer to an RTI query as to whether the vehicle was involved in the accident or not. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has also applied for taking an additional evidence on record which is in the shape of an answer to an RTI query as to whether the vehicle was involved in the accident or not. The said document indicates that the Regional Manager, Meerut of the UP Roadways Corporation had given an information that on 02.08.2007, no accident occurred with Bus No. UP15-AT-0695. It has been submitted that the findings returned by the Tribunal are not legally justified and since there was a huge delay in lodging the first information report, the claim ought to have been dismissed. 9. So far as the question of delay in lodging the first information report is concerned, suffice it to say that it is one of the aspect that is to be considered by the Tribunal while returning a finding on an issue relating to the factum and manner of the accident. In the instant case, though there may have been delay in lodging the first information report but the evidence which was laid before the Tribunal went unrebutted as no evidence was led either by the Insurance Company or the owner of the vehicle to challenge the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. The police investigated the matter and laid a charge-sheet against the driver of the vehicle after collecting all evidence during the course of investigation. The statement of P.W.2, who was an eye-witness of the accident, proved the factum of accident. In a case where a person dies in a road accident, and his family members are not witness to the road accident, the first concern of the family members is to somehow save the life of the person, who is injured in the accident. Ordinarily, eye-witness to an accident are not willing to come forward particularly where they are not family members. Therefore, not much importance is to be given to the delay in lodging of the first information report if, otherwise, the factum and the manner of accident is proved by occular as well as documentary evidence. 10. In the instant case, the eye-witness was one Santosh s/o Jai Prakash, who appeared in the witness-box and deposed with regards to the involvement of the vehicle in question. The entire evidence disclosed that the deceased died on account of injuries suffered in an accident. 10. In the instant case, the eye-witness was one Santosh s/o Jai Prakash, who appeared in the witness-box and deposed with regards to the involvement of the vehicle in question. The entire evidence disclosed that the deceased died on account of injuries suffered in an accident. The police report also suggested that the bus concerned was involved in the accident whose driver was Raj Kumar. In such circumstances, particularly, as no evidence was led in rebuttal to the evidence led by the claimant, the finding returned by the Tribunal on issue nos. 1 and 2 with regards to factum of accident as also that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver cannot be disturbed. 11. So far as the validity of permit is concerned, suffice it to say that the burden was on the Insurance Company to establish the defence which it took to avoid its liability. In the instant case, the letter dated 09.04.2007, which was brought on record indicated that the vehicle had a valid permit. The burden was, therefore, on the Insurance Company to collect evidence from the concerned authority and establish that the vehicle did not have a valid permit. Admittedly, no evidence was led by the Insurance Company to prove its defence. The licence of the driver was brought on record. The insurance policy as also the fitness certificate was also brought on record, in such circumstances, I do not find any good reason to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that before the Tribunal it could not be proved that the vehicle was being used in compliance of the terms and conditions of the certificate of insurance. 12. As regards the RTI query, which has been sought to be adduced as an additional evidence, suffice it to say that a report from an interested party that the bus was not involved in an accident is hardly any evidence of consequence. A person whose bus is involved in an accident would normally never admit its involvement in an accident. In such circumstances, the additional evidence which has been sought to be adduced before this Court is of no consequence and the prayer to bring the same on record is rejected. 13. A person whose bus is involved in an accident would normally never admit its involvement in an accident. In such circumstances, the additional evidence which has been sought to be adduced before this Court is of no consequence and the prayer to bring the same on record is rejected. 13. For the reasons discussed above as also that no other point has been pressed, I do not find any good reason to entertain this appeal. 14. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 15. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant before this court shall be remitted to the Tribunal and would be adjusted against the amount required to be deposited under the award.