Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 42 (RAJ)

Bhuri Bai v. Mani Lal Raut

2015-01-06

P.K.LOHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble LOHRA, J.—Issue notice. 2. Mr. L.K.Purohit, Panel Lawyer of the Corporation, is directed to accept notice on behalf of respondent No. 3-Corporation. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally at this stage. 4. Appellant-claimant has laid this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act of 1988') challenging the impugned award dated 15.05.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Udaipur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 900/2010, whereby the claim of the appellant under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 is dismissed. 5. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that as per version of the appellant, on 18.06.2009, her son Jeeva @ Jeevalal was travelling in the Corporation bus bearing RJ-12/P-1318 on Dungarpur Jodhpur route with the destination of village Bansada. When the bus reached near Dholighati, Bansada stand, deceased took his luggage from the bus and while he was alighting from bus, the driver of the bus started the vehicle and therefore, the deceased fell down on the road and was crushed by the rear wheel of the bus, resulting into his death on the spot. The incident was reported and FIR was lodged at Police Station, Gogunda District Udaipur by one Chuna, brother of the deceased. In the FIR, while alleging the accident caused by a motor vehicle, it is projected that it was caused by an unknown vehicle. As a matter of fact, no material particulars were furnished about the offending vehicle. On the basis of report, Case No. 132/2009 was registered for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. During investigation, Vehicle No. RJ-12/P-1318 of the Corporation was seized after almost three months and it was mechanically examined by the Inspector. In the claim petition, for quantifying amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 27,75,000/-, the appellant has averred that deceased was employed with Bhurilal at Surat as Accountant and taking care of marketing of Bhurilal earning Rs. 7,000/-per month. 6. The claim petition is contested on behalf of Corporation respondent. Reply to the claim petition is submitted and it was alleged in the reply that the entire story is false and concocted, as no accident occurred with the Corporation vehicle on the fateful day at Bansada. 7,000/-per month. 6. The claim petition is contested on behalf of Corporation respondent. Reply to the claim petition is submitted and it was alleged in the reply that the entire story is false and concocted, as no accident occurred with the Corporation vehicle on the fateful day at Bansada. It is also submitted in the reply that it was a express bus, which was having no stoppage at Bansada village, and as such, the entire story that deceased alighted on stoppage of the bus at Bansada is based on full of fabricated and baseless facts. 7. On the basis of pleadings of the rival parties, three issues were framed. In support of her claim, appellant herself appeared in the witness box. On behalf of Corporation, driver of the Vehicle Mani Lal, NAW 1 appeared in the witness box to substantiate the defence of the Corporation. 8. The learned Tribunal on evaluation of evidence and other materials on record has found that there is no semblance of proof that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Corporation vehicle. On a critical analysis of the evidence tendered by the appellant, the learned Tribunal has found that as a matter of fact, the Corporation bus has not caused any accident, which has resulted into the death of deceased Jeeva. The evidence has been discussed threadbare by the learned Tribunal while recording finding on Issue No.1 against the appellant. Considering the said finding against the appellant, other issues were also decided against the appellant and eventually the claim petition is dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is umpteen material available on record to show that offending vehicle has caused accident but the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective. Mr. Sabir Khan, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that on the basis of FIR case under Sections 279 and 304-A has been registered against the driver of the Corporation vehicle, which is a clinching evidence to prove the involvement of the Corporation vehicle in the accident but the learned Tribunal has not examined the charge-sheet and other allied papers and has simply relied upon the site plan prepared by the police during investigation. 10. On the other hand Mr. 10. On the other hand Mr. L.K.Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that learned Tribunal has examined the matter threadbare and after perusal of the evidence and other materials available on record has recorded an affirmative finding that Corporation vehicle was not involved in the accident and the said finding is not liable to be interfered with. Mr. Purohit further submits that in the FIR it is alleged that the accident is caused by unknown vehicle but the witnesses have projected embellished version before the learned Tribunal by implicating the Corporation vehicle without any rhyme and reason, which is not established from the material available on record. Laying stress on the site plan, Mr. Purohit submits that on the face of it the occurrence of accident while alighting from bus is not conceivable and the entire story is based on false and concocted facts which has been rightly repudiated by the learned Tribunal by dismissing the claim. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and scanned the entire record of the learned Tribunal. 12. Upon perusal of the impugned award and the record of the Tribunal, in my considered opinion, the learned Tribunal has made sincere endeavour to unearth the truth about the occurrence of the accident. Well it is true that in claim cases strict rules of evidence akin to a criminal trial is not applicable and conclusions can be drawn on the basis of preponderance of probabilities but there has to be some plausible evidence to show occurrence of the accident and a proof for cause of accident namely rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. From the evidence available on record even if the principles enshrined under the maxim “res ipsa loquitur” are to be invoked, it is not possible to hold that Corporation vehicle was involved in the accident. As the appellant has miserably failed to prove the occurrence of accident by the offending vehicle, i.e. Corporation vehicle, and the said finding of the learned Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of evidence, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned award. Moreover, the findings of the learned Tribunal are neither perverse, nor dehors the prescribed cannons of justice. 13. Thus, viewed from any angle, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned award. 14. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is hereby, dismissed.