Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 894 (UTT)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chameli Devi

2016-11-28

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. All these appeals have arisen out of the same accident, hence are being taken up together for adjudication. 2. Having heard on the delay condonation application (CLMA 2700 of 2016), filed in AO No. 173 of 2016, delay in filing this appeal is condoned. The said application stands allowed accordingly. This appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. Heard on the merits of all these appeals. 4. In brief, the facts are that at 6.15 PM on 9.3.2012, when Samsher Singh @ Dhillu and his companion Yogendra Singh, ridden on motorcycle no. UP22J-1530, were travelling at the outskirts of Kashipur town, a tractor Swaraj 735 attached with trailer (trolley) dashed them. As a consequence of this accident, Samsher Singh died at the spot, while Yogendra Singh became seriously injured. 5. First Information Report was lodged quickly on the same day at 7.30 PM, while the police station was 14 kilometres away from the spot. FIR was lodged for the offences under Section 279, 337, 427, 304A IPC under Crime No. 96 of 2012. The scribe was Rajpal Singh, while in the column of informant, the name of Baljeet Singh (cousin of the deceased) was got written. In the First Information Report, the particulars of the offending tractor was stated to be bearing the registration no. UP24D-1722. 6. Claim petition by the defendants of Samsher Singh was filed on 25.4.2012, while injured Yogendra Singh presented the claim petition on 30.4.2012 before the Tribunal. It was averred in both these petitions that the accident occurred with the tractor no. UP21B-1831, which was duly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. The trial culminated into award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,01,000/- in favour of the dependants of deceased Samsher Singh, while compensation of Rs. 1,28,000/- odds was granted to injured Yogendra Singh. These awards have been challenged by the Oriental Insurance Company by filing the AO No. 172 & 173 of 2016, while the dependants of the deceased Samsher Singh, feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, have preferred the AO No. 129 of 2016 for enhancement of the same. 7. I have heard the rival contentions submitted by learned Counsel for the either parties. 8. Learned Counsel on behalf of the insurance company has submitted that in order to make their claim petitions successful, the tractor no. 7. I have heard the rival contentions submitted by learned Counsel for the either parties. 8. Learned Counsel on behalf of the insurance company has submitted that in order to make their claim petitions successful, the tractor no. UP21B-1831 has been implanted for the reasons best known to the claimants, instead of tractor no. UP24D-1722, which was mentioned in the FIR promptly lodged within an hour of the incident, notwithstanding the police station was located at the distance of 14 kilometres. 9. Contents of the First Information Report, available on the record, show that while the body of the deceased Samsher Singh was lying at the spot and the tractor was also there because the driver had escaped leaving such tractor at the spot. So, it is difficult to accept that the registration no. of the tractor UP24D-1722 was wrongly written, instead of the real offending tractor UP21B-1831, as has been deposed by Baljeet Singh. 10. It is obvious that Baljeet Singh’s deposition in the witness box is quite farce and unbelievable and it is for the whole planning of planting such a tractor which was duly insured. The tractor, which has been shown in the averments of the claim petitions (different from the registration no. mentioned in the FIR), is evidently belonging to the nearby locations, where the claimants reside too. It has been falsely implanted in order to make the claim petitions successful against the Oriental Insurance Company. 11. Submission of learned Counsel for the claimants that the tractor no. UP21B-1831 was got released by its owner on 7.4.2012 does not hold any water for the reason that despite of such release, this tractor cannot be linked with the accident because the possibility of detention of such tractor for entirely in different context cannot be ruled out. 12. In view of what has been set forth above, I feel that although the accident occurred, but the tractor no. UP21B-1831 was not at all concerned with such accident and it has been planted in order to grab the public money. 13. Thus, AO No. 172 & 173 of 2016, preferred by the insurance company, are hereby allowed. Impugned awards are hereby set aside. AO No. 129 of 2016 is hereby dismissed. UP21B-1831 was not at all concerned with such accident and it has been planted in order to grab the public money. 13. Thus, AO No. 172 & 173 of 2016, preferred by the insurance company, are hereby allowed. Impugned awards are hereby set aside. AO No. 129 of 2016 is hereby dismissed. The entire amount, deposited by the appellant, along with the statutory compulsory deposit and the interest which such deposits have earned, shall be returned to the appellant insurance company. 14. Let the lower court records be sent back.