Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 700 (RAJ)

Narbada Devi v. Shaitan Ram Anr.

2014-03-12

NISHA GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment /award dated 12.6.2008 passed by Judge, MACT and Addl. District Judge (Fast Track No.3), Japiur Distt. Jaipur in Claim Case No. 170/2007 (870/2006) has been filed whereby the claim petition has been dismissed. 2. The short facts of the case are that claimant appellants have filed a claim petition with the contention that on 12.2.2006 at about 1.00 PM, deceased Mahesh Kumar was coming out of the well in his field with the help of a bucket tied with Tractor No. RJ14-RY-150 when the bucket overturned, he died. It was submitted that it was the negligence of the truck driver which resulted into the accident. The court below has dismissed the claim petition holding that the deceased has not died on account of use of tractor in question and it was only an accidental death of falling in the well, hence this appeal. 3. The contention of the appellants is that eye-witness Rameshwar Lal has corroborated the fact of accident, use of offending vehicle and there was no reason for the court below for not believing the factum of accident which was well established from the evidence placed on record. The court below has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective only on the ground that FIR is delayed one, his claim petition has been dismissed, court below has also relied upon the opinion of the Investigating Agency but it is well settled that the opinion of the Investigating Agency is not binding upon the civil court, hence his claim petition be allowed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as well as the original record of the case. 5. It is not in dispute that deceased Mahesh Kumar has died on 12.2.2006 and case of the claimants is that on the same day Narbada Devi has reported the matter to the police and police also arrived at the spot but no FIR has been lodged on that day. Per contra on 8.3.2006, a criminal complaint has been filed before the competent court on which the First Information Report has been lodged. 6. Per contra on 8.3.2006, a criminal complaint has been filed before the competent court on which the First Information Report has been lodged. 6. The contention in the claim petition is that the deceased was immediately taken to Rainwal hospital but no document of the hospital has been produced even post mortem has not been conducted which clearly shows the fabrication of the claim petition. 7. Rameshwar Lal has been designed as eyewitness. Narbada Devi has stated that Rameshwar Lal is her father-in-law closely related with the deceased but Rameshwar Lal has stated that after the accident, he went to his home, he has not reported the matter to the police and he had not carried the deceased to the hospital. He has also stated in his cross-examination that police came on the spot after twothree days but the police papers to this effect has not been placed on record. Narbada Devi wife of deceased is not the eye-witness to the incident. In her statement recorded by the Insurance Company, she has not stated that deceased has died due to the involvement of the vehicle, rather she has stated that cause of death of the deceased is not known to her which also speaks against contention raised in the claim petition. After investigation, the Investigating Agency was of the opinion that it was a case of accidental death due to fall in the well and no involvement of vehicle has been found. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon Ravi v. Badrinarayan & ors., (2011) 4 SCC 693 wherein it has been held that only on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case should not be dismissed, there cannot be a straight jacket formula for the appreciation of evidence. There may be cases where delay in lodging FIR would not be significant as in the case of Ravi (supra) where immediately the injured was carried to hospital, police arrived there and injury report was prepared which testified the fact that injuries has been caused due to the road accident but here in the present case, the facts are converse. As per claim petition, the deceased was taken to the hospital but no post mortem has been conducted and no medical papers of the said hospital has been placed on record. As per claim petition, the deceased was taken to the hospital but no post mortem has been conducted and no medical papers of the said hospital has been placed on record. Police arrived at the spot but no police papers have been placed on record and the scrutiny of the facts clearly shows that it is a case of fabricated and engineered evidence and the court below has considered the rival contentions and after considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, arrived at a right conclusion that deceased has not died due to the involvement of the vehicle and court below has rightly rejected the claim petition. No interference is needed.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******