Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1291 (RAJ)

Rami Devi w/o Lekh Ram v. Urmila Jakhar w/o Manoj Jakhar

2016-09-05

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16/4/2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has rejected the application for compensation filed by the appellant-claimants. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the claimants inter alia with the averments that husband/father of claimants, Lekh Ram, was travelling in Car No. RJ-07-C-6853 from Bijarnia to Loonkaransar and the Car was being driven by Devi Lal; when the Car reached towards Loonkaransar, a blue bull (uhy xk;) crossed the road and in an attempt to save the said bull, the driver Devi Lal could not keep control over the vehicle and the same turned turtle, resulting in death of Lekh Ram. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 45,10,000/- along with interest. 3. On behalf of respondent no. 2, Devi Lal, no reply was filed. Respondent no. 1-owner of the vehicle, filed her written statement and submitted that the accident occurred on account of sudden events taking place and denied her liability. It was indicated that the amount claimed was excessive and that the Insurance Company was liable for making payment of compensation. 4. The non-claimant Insurance Company filed its reply and denied the contents of the application. It was submitted that the averments made were incorrect as in the FIR it was specifically indicated that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle, the non-claimants owner and alleged driver were in collusion and a false claim has been lodged and after lodging the FIR, with malafide intention, Devi Lal has been shown as driver. The deceased was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and for his own negligence, the claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation, the driver was not in possession of a valid driving licence and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable for making payment of compensation. 5. The Tribunal framed five issues. On behalf of the claimants, AW.1-Vinod, AW.2-Rami and AW.3-Ramesh were examined and documents Ex.1 to 13 were exhibited. On behalf of the Insurance Company NAW.1- Arjun Lal Yadav appeared in the witness box and exhibited documents from NA-1 to NA-4. 5. The Tribunal framed five issues. On behalf of the claimants, AW.1-Vinod, AW.2-Rami and AW.3-Ramesh were examined and documents Ex.1 to 13 were exhibited. On behalf of the Insurance Company NAW.1- Arjun Lal Yadav appeared in the witness box and exhibited documents from NA-1 to NA-4. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal noticed that AW.2-Rami exhibited documents Ex.1 to Ex.10 and claimed that the accident occurred while the deceased was travelling with Devi Lal in the Car and in the cross examination she indicated that her husband Lekh Ram did not know driving, Devi Lal is her brother-in-law and visits her house; AW.3- Ramesh gave statement about the income of the deceased and AW.1-Vinod gave statement pertaining to the accident and denied that he gave statement NA.1 and claimed that he was not interrogated by the police. 6. The Tribunal based on the contents of the FIR Ex.2, wherein, Devi Lal specifically indicated that they were travelling from National Highway No. 15 to Loonkaransar and the vehicle was being driven by his uncle Lekh Ram and for controverting the said evidence no documentary evidence regarding the vehicle being driven by Devi Lal was produced, though the police came to the conclusion that the vehicle was being driven by Devi Lal, however, no supportive document was produced; there was no independent witness supporting the statement of AW.1-Vinod and came to the conclusion that the vehicle was being driven by deceased Lekh Ram himself. In view of the fact that the accident occurred in which the deceased himself was driving the vehicle and the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the application for compensation was dismissed by the Tribunal. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the claimants merely based on the police documents and by ignoring the oral evidence along with the FR which was filed by police pertaining to the accident and, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be set aside and the application for compensation deserves to be accepted. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company supported the judgment impugned. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company supported the judgment impugned. It was submitted that the FIR and other documents available on record clearly indicate that the accident occurred while deceased Lekh Ram himself was driving the vehicle and with a view to claim compensation, the plea was raised that Devi Lal was driving the vehicle, which aspect was factually incorrect and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application for compensation. 9. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. From a bare perusal of the record, it is apparent that the claimants came out with a case that Lekh Ram was occupant of the vehicle in question, which was being driven by Devi Lal and that Vinod was also one of the occupants and vehicle turned turtle on account of sudden events as a blue bull came in front of the car and while saving the said animal the accident occurred. Allegation was made that Devi Lal was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. For proving the said aspect, the claimants produced eye witness AW.1- Vinod and produced documents prepared by the police. A look at the documents exhibited by the claimants reveals that on 15/2/2006 i.e. the date of accident, Devi Lal gave a written report Ex.2 to the police inter alia indicating that his uncle Lekh Ram, Vinod and Jagdish were travelling in the car and the same was being driven by his uncle Lekh Ram, which turned turtle and Lekh Ram suffered injuries, he was admitted to the hospital where he died. The police lodged the FIR and started investigation. During the course of investigation, statements of Vinod under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded, wherein, he clearly indicated that the car was being driven by Lekh Ram. The police gave its Final Report (Ex.3), wherein, after noticing the facts as indicated in the FIR noticed that after the lodging of FIR, Devi Lal produced an affidavit and indicated that he himself was driving the vehicle and based on the affidavit and after recording further evidence, the police reached the conclusion that the vehicle was being driven by Devi Lal. 11. 11. The material, which is contemporary and version indicated in the First Information Report by Devi Lal himself, wherein, he clearly indicated that the car was being driven by Lekh Ram, the police lodged the FIR with the said version and in the case diary of the police, produced as Ex.NA.2 also it was clearly indicated that the vehicle was being driven by Lekh Ram, which was based on the statements of Devi Lal recorded on 15/2/2006 itself. The statements of Jagdish, another co-occupant, were also recorded and he also indicated that Lekh Ram was driving the car. Devi Lal did not enter the witness box and out of the three occupants, other than Lekh Ram, only Vinod entered the witness box and when Vinod was confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., instead of explaining the said statement he simply denied having given the statement, and stated that police did not make any inquiries from him. The said statement of Vinod per se is false and in view of the fact that contemporary documents clearly indicate that the vehicle was being driven by Lekh Ram, all subsequent attempts to change the said version and indicate that Devi Lal was driving the vehicle is only with a view to ensure that the family of the deceased is not deprived of the compensation. In view thereof, the finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse so as to require interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.