Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 552 (ALL)

Pushpa Devi v. Ram Sakal

2016-02-16

KRISHNA MURARI, RAGHVENDRA KUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the appellant in Court is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgement and award dated 24.12.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Maharajganj in M.A.C.P. No. 55 of 2014, Smt. Pushpa and others Vs. State of U.P. and others whereby the claim petition has been dismissed. 4. The brief facts of the case are that Amarjeet (deceased) was coming back from the village Madhurkarpur Mahdeva on motor cycle as pillion rider at about 5.30 a.m. on 24.4.2014. As the motor cycle proceeded ahead from Farenda near village Gujarpurwa one Pick Up Vehicle No. U.P. 26 T-4295 came and hit the motor cycle from its back which was being driven by Jafar Khan rashly and negligently. In the said accident, Amarjeet (deceased) sustained grievous injuries and subsequently on 12.5.2014 succumbed to injuries. The deceased was earning Rs. 9000/- per month and has claimed the compensation of Rs. 21,48000/- alongwith 12% interest. 5. The claim petition was contested by the Insurance company. The respondents no. 1 and 2 respectively, owner and driver of the Pick Up Vehicle No. U.P. 26 T-4295, inspite of service of summons, did not contest the claim petition and the petition was directed to proceed ex-parte against them. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, an issue was framed whether the Pick Up Vehicle No. U.P. 26 T-4295 was being driven rashly and negligently on 24.4.2014 at 5.30 a.m. near village Gujarpurwa within district Maharajganj and dashed the motor cycle on which Amarjeet (deceased) was pillion rider and he sustained severe injuries and succumb to injuries. 7. The claimants have examined P.W.1, Smt. Pushpa Devi and P.W.2, Ram Sanehi as witnesses. P.W.1 has categorically stated that she had not seen the accident. P.W.2, Ram Sanehi is alleged to be eye witness. 8. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the tribunal has failed to appreciate the testimony of the eye witness P.W.2 Ram Sanehi in the right prospective and has wrongly doubted the incident being seen by the P.W.2 and the involvement of the offending vehicle no. U.P. 26 T-4295. 8. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the tribunal has failed to appreciate the testimony of the eye witness P.W.2 Ram Sanehi in the right prospective and has wrongly doubted the incident being seen by the P.W.2 and the involvement of the offending vehicle no. U.P. 26 T-4295. Admittedly, the accident is alleged to have taken place on 24.4.2014 at 5.30 a.m. P.W.2 Ram Sanehi is the eye witness of the incident. P.W.2 has supported the version of the claim petition and has given description about date, time, place and manner of the accident and the details of the offending vehicle and he has also stated that Amarjeet succumbed to injuries on 12.5.2014 sustains by him during the accident. 9. The witness has categorically stated that he has seen the registration number of the offending Pick UP vehicle. He has also admitted his presence at the time of execution of the inquest report. Arvind Gupta son of the deceased and P.W.2 Ram Sanahi both expressed their opinion before the police officer at the time of execution of the inquest report that while coming on the motor cycle some unknown vehicle might have dashed the motor cycle in which the deceased sustained injuries. The inquest report was prepared on 13.5.2014 at 8.40 hrs. The report of the accident was lodged with the police on 15.5.2014 at 13.00 hrs. 10. Learned tribunal has categorically appraised the testimony of P.W.2 and has also appreciated that P.W.2 did not disclose colour of the offending vehicle whereas he has told about stopping of the offending vehicle on the spot. The witness has also told to have seen the registration number of the offending Pick Up vehicle. P.W.2 did not disclose the details of the offending vehicle or its registration number to the police officer at the time of execution of the inquest report and in the inquest report he has expressed opinion that some unknown vehicle might have dashed the pillion rider who was travelling on the motor cycle on the date, time and place of accident. P.W.2 expressed his inability to disclose the registration number of the motor cycle. No such evidence has been led before the tribunal how the vehicle number was disclosed in the F.I.R. by Arvind Gupta son of the deceased on 15.5.2014 after lapse of two days of the execution of the inquest report. 11. P.W.2 expressed his inability to disclose the registration number of the motor cycle. No such evidence has been led before the tribunal how the vehicle number was disclosed in the F.I.R. by Arvind Gupta son of the deceased on 15.5.2014 after lapse of two days of the execution of the inquest report. 11. Learned tribunal has also recorded the finding that only for getting the benefit of the compensation, the offending Pick Up Vehicle No. U.P. 26 T-4295 has been involved in the accident. Considering the admission about the presence of P.W.2 and his signature on the inquest report, the tribunal has recorded finding that the offending vehicle has wrongly been involved in the accident and did not find the testimony of P.W.2 inspiring confidence. Since the evidence of P.W.2 in the estimation of the tribunal was not beyond shadow of doubt, hence the factum of accident involving the offending pick up vehicle was not found to be established. Being the court of first appeal, we have critically appraised the judgement and finding recorded by the learned tribunal. The tribunal has not erred in appreciating the evidence of P.W.2 and it has recorded a reasoned findings. No other point has been raised before us. 12. We do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned judgement and award dated 24.12.2015. 13. The appeal is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed in limine.