Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 42 (TRI)

Biplab Das v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

2016-02-18

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : This appeal by the claimant-appellant is directed against the judgment dated 16th January, 2012 whereby the claim petition has been dismissed basically on the ground that the claimant has failed to prove that he received injuries in any motor vehicle accident and has also failed to prove that the injuries for which he got treatment were received by him in the motor vehicle accident. 2. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 alleging that he was riding a bicycle on 23.08.2007 when he was hit by auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.TR-01-B-3503 near I.T.I, Indranagar. The insurance company specifically took a plea that no accident had taken place and denied each and every averment made in the claim petition. The claimant also in the claim petition did not state who was driving the auto-rickshaw. The owner of the auto-rickshaw as is normally the case in Tripura where vehicles are insured admitted the accident, stated that he could only remember that one fellow riding a bicycle had a collision with the auto-rickshaw and had sustained simple injuries and left thereafter. Though the accident allegedly took place on 23.08.2007 the report with regard to the accident was made only on 18.09.2007 i.e. after 27 days. Delay in lodging the FIR or the G.D. Entry made itself would not be fatal to this case. But it would be pertinent to refer to the following observations of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, MACT) with regard to the accident which reads as follows: “The alleged accident is said to have reported to G.B. Town Out Post vide G.D. Entry No.602 dated 18.09.2007, i.e. after about 27 days of alleged accident. The said G.D Book is called for by this Tribunal. It is noticed that on 18.09.2007 at about 12.15 hours the G. D. Entry was recorded. In the same G. D. it is also noted that investigation was done and the alleged fact was found true and the accident occurred due to rash driving of vehicle No.TR-01-B-3503 (Auto-Rickshaw). The name of the officer recording G.D. is not mentioned in the G.D. Book. In the same G. D. it is also noted that investigation was done and the alleged fact was found true and the accident occurred due to rash driving of vehicle No.TR-01-B-3503 (Auto-Rickshaw). The name of the officer recording G.D. is not mentioned in the G.D. Book. The G. D. Entry No.601 and 603 dated 18.09.2007 appears to have written by one person whereas G. D. Entry No.602 dated 18.9.2007 was written by another person as the hand writing differs, that means that regular police officer on duty at relevant point of time did not record the G. D. Entry No.602. Some other person not on duty recorded the G. D Entry. All those things took place in collusion of two police officers and one Amal Das alleged to have recorded the incident. More surprising thing is that a considerable space was left blank in between 601 and 603 so that any manipulation can be done in future for vested interest. It is further important to note here that at the very moment of recording G. D. Entry No.602 at 12.45 hours the investigation was also completed, that means entry was recorded at 12.15 hours and the investigation was also concluded at 12.15 hours. Offending vehicle No.TR-01-B-3503 (Auto- Rickshaw) was alleged to have found responsible during investigation for causing injury but no charge sheet was filed against the driver. Moreover, any police officer of any Out Post under one Police Station has no authority to investigate until and unless authorized by the Officer-in-Charge of the said Police Station. I find nothing in the G.D. Entry No.602 about any kind of authority given for investigation. Thus, all the above findings clearly speak about manipulation, so called false investigation and recording of G. D. Entry for some personal vested interest of two police officers of G. B. TOP. As such, the matter is required to be informed to the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura, Agartala for taking note about the illegalities of two police officers for taking action as per law.” 3. A perusal of the finding of the MACT who had the benefit of perusing the original G. D. register shows that the entry was made at 12.15 hours and in the very same entry it is mentioned that after investigation it has been found that such allegations are correct. A perusal of the finding of the MACT who had the benefit of perusing the original G. D. register shows that the entry was made at 12.15 hours and in the very same entry it is mentioned that after investigation it has been found that such allegations are correct. The learned Tribunal was right in holding that how the police officer could hold that these allegations were correct and how could investigation had been carried out within the police station itself because there is nothing in the G. D Entry to show that any police officer was deputed to record the statements of any witnesses or went to the spot. 4. Another surprising factor which the learned Court below has found is that Entry No.602 relating to the accident has been entered at 12.15 hours and is in the hand of some person other than the person in whose hand Entry No.601 and Entry No.603 of the same date were written. In a police station normally one person is deputed with the duty of taking down the G.D Entry. Entry No.601 is in the hand of some other person then this disputed Entry comes in and thereafter there is another Entry No. 603 which appears to have been written by some other person. The G.D Entry Nos. 601 and 603 are by one and the same person. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that there appears to be collusion of the police officials also. The learned Tribunal was right in holding that the matter requires to be inquired by the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura but I am not sure whether the order or copy of the judgment and award actually sent to the Superintendent of Police or not? However, now a copy of the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal as well as copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Superintendent of Police who shall submit his inquiry to this Court within one month from today. 5. The other aspect of the matter is that the petitioner did not care to produce the discharge certificate issued by the G. B. P. Hospital. It is stated by Mr. Nandi that when a party leaves without the consent of the doctors they do not issue discharge certificate. I am not sure, what is the position in this regard. 5. The other aspect of the matter is that the petitioner did not care to produce the discharge certificate issued by the G. B. P. Hospital. It is stated by Mr. Nandi that when a party leaves without the consent of the doctors they do not issue discharge certificate. I am not sure, what is the position in this regard. But it is the duty of the petitioner who comes to Court to either prove the discharge certificate or to summon the record from the hospital including the bed head ticket to show, what was the history which was recorded in the bed head ticket with regard to the injury being sustained? Normally, this Court relies upon a discharge certificate because that is expected to be a true reflection of what is contained in the bed head ticket but if a party has not been able to obtain a discharge certificate than it is the duty of the party to summon the record from the hospital and prove the bed-head ticket. This has not done till date and even though this case was dismissed by the Tribunal in 2012 and almost four years have elapsed not even an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC has been filed before this Court. 6. Another aspect of the matter is that after the petitioner was allegedly discharged at his own risk on 9th or 10th September, 2007, he went for treatment to the hospital at Silchar in the year 2008 after one year and four months. Even in the record of the South City Hospital which has been produced including the discharge certificate there is no indication that these injuries were received in a motor vehicle accident. 7. Therefore, I am clearly of the opinion that the learned Tribunal was fully justified in holding that the petitioner has failed to prove his case to show that he had received injuries in a motor vehicle accident. Accordingly, I find no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Send down the LCRs forthwith.