Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1811 (RAJ)

J. v. V. N. L. VS Kanhaiya Lal

2015-10-27

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This civil misc. appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.10.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal'), whereby the tribunal has directed the appellant-company to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 63,400/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the respondent No. 1. 2. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the tribunal alleging therein that on 31.07.1996, he sustained grievous injuries in an accident by the Jeep bearing No. RJ-14-C-6574 driven by the driver of the appellant-company in a rash and negligent manner and his scooter was also damaged. 3. The tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties and the material available on record has held that the respondent No. 1 has sustained injuries in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep No. RJ-14-C-6574 by its driver and, therefore, the appellant-company and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the respondent No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 63,400/- along with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. There was no dispute before the tribunal that the Jeep No. RJ-14-C-6574 was owned by the appellant-company. 4. Before the tribunal, the appellant-company took defence that at the time when the accident took place, the driver of the said Jeep was not authorised to drive the vehicle and he had taken away the vehicle unauthorisedly after depositing the same into garage. The tribunal has considered the said defence of the appellant-company and held that the appellant-company has failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence in defence to prove that the driver of the Jeep was not authorised to drive the vehicle or he had taken away the vehicle unauthorisedly after depositing the same in the garage of the appellant-company. 5. The tribunal has considered the statements of NAW-1 Narendra Kumar - Assistant Engineer, NAW-2 Mahendra Singh - Cashier and NAW-3 Shamshudeen - Chowkidar, working with the appellant-company and held that the logbook produced by the appellant-company in support of their contention that the aforesaid Jeep involved in the accident was deposited in the garage at 08:15 PM on 31.07.1996 does not inspire confidence because the author of the said entries viz. NAW-2 Mahendra Singh has admitted in his statement that he alighted from the vehicle at his house on 31.07.1996 at about 08:30 PM and, thereafter, the driver took away the vehicle for depositing the same in the garage. The tribunal has, therefore, held that when NAW-2 Mahendra Kumar the author of the entries of the logbook alighted from the vehicle before it was deposited in the garage, the entry in the logbook mentioning that Jeep involved in the accident was deposited in garage at 08:15 PM is not believable. 6. Similarly, after considering the statement of NAW-1 Narendra Kumar - Assistant Engineer and NAW-3 Shamshudeen - Chowkidar, the tribunal has opined that both the witnesses have not spoken truth before the Court and made false statements to the effect that the Jeep involved in the accident was deposited in the garage at 08:15 PM and thereafter was taken out by the driver of the Jeep unauthorisedly at 08:30 PM on 31.07.1996. The tribunal has observed that as per the statements of NAW-1 Narendra Kumar - Assistant Engineer, he was dropped at his residence from the Jeep at about 08:00 PM and thereafter the driver went to drop other persons at their houses and from these statements, it is clear that the Jeep was not deposited in his presence in the garage at 08:15 PM. In respect of NAW-3 Shamshudeen - Chowkidar, the tribunal has observed that no documentary evidence has been produced to the effect that NAW-3 Shamshudeen was working as Chowkidar at the garage of appellant-company, where the Jeep involved in the accident was allegedly deposited at 08:15 PM on 31.07.1996. The tribunal has also observed that in his statement NAW-3 Shamshudeen has submitted that he reported on duty at 09:00 PM on 31.07.1996 and thereafter one Kuldeep Singh and another constable took away the Jeep after 15 to 20 minutes, but the said version of NAW-3 Shamshudeen - Chowkidar is not believable because in the logbook the time of taking away the Jeep from the garage is mentioned as 08:30 PM. The tribunal has, therefore, rejected the defence of the appellant-company that at the time of the accident the Jeep owned by the appellant-company was not under their control. 7. The tribunal has, therefore, rejected the defence of the appellant-company that at the time of the accident the Jeep owned by the appellant-company was not under their control. 7. Having considered the evidence produced by the appellant-company particularly the statements of NAW-1 Narendra Kumar - Assistant Engineer, NAW-2 Mahendra Singh - Cashier and NAW-3 Shamshudeen - Chowkidar and discrepancies in the logbook Ex.P/15, I am of the opinion that the tribunal has not committed any illegality in rejecting the defence of the appellant-company that the Jeep involved in the accident was not authorisedly driven by the driver at the time of accident. 8. So far as, quantum of compensation and the factum of accident is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has not advanced any arguments to demolish the finding of the tribunal in respect of the said points. 9. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******