Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2158 (RAJ)

Meena Sharma v. Babu Lal

2017-10-06

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. In this Misc. Appeal, appellants-claimants assailed the impugned judgment dated 22.05.2006 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MAC Case No. 104/2005 (Smt. Meena Sharma And Ors. v. Babulal And Ors.) whereby learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of appellants-claimants holding that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident and was planted to get compensation amount from the Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that there are two eye witnesses AW-2-Man Singh and AW-3-Vijendra Singh before whom the offending vehicle hit the deceased who succumbed to the injuries sustained in the alleged accident. They have clearly stated regarding involvement of the offending vehicle Truck No. RJ-14-G-4279. Police also submitted charge-sheet against the driver and owner of the Truck Babulal. The owner and driver of the Truck also admitted the involvement of Truck in accident in reply submitted by him against the notice issued by Investigating Officer under Section 133 M.V. Act. Without considering all theses facts, learned tribunal wrongly decided issue No.-1 and consequently wrongly rejected the claim petition. Therefore this Appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be quashed and set aside and appropriate award may be passed in favour of the appellants-claimants. 3. Learned counsel relied upon Ravi v. Badrinarayan And Ors. reported in 2011 ACJ 911 , Kusum Lata and Ors. v. Satbir & Ors. reported in 2011 ACJ 926 and Saroj And Ors. v. Het Lal And Ors. reported in 2011 ACJ 552 . 4. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the presence of both the eye witnesses is doubtful. They in their respective statements clearly stated that soon after the incident in their presence Police visited the spot, the Police officer SHO Ramniwas, C.I., Police Station Bayana who visited spot soon after the incident didn't support their contention. Rather in rojnamacha report which he recorded after returning from the place of incidence on which FIR was registered didn't mention the presence of so-called eye witnesses, if they would have been present there on spot then the number of offending vehicle would have been known to the SHO Mr. Ramniwas C.I. and it would have mention in rojnamacha report. Not only this, their statements were also recorded after two months from the date of incident by the Investigating Officer. Ramniwas C.I. and it would have mention in rojnamacha report. Not only this, their statements were also recorded after two months from the date of incident by the Investigating Officer. She submits that in this regard learned tribunal appreciated their statements rightly and discarded. She submits that since deceased was Police constable, therefore Police wrongly investigated the matter and after connivance of owner cum driver of the alleged Truck filed charge-sheet against the owner cum driver of the Truck just to help the appellants-claimants who were kith and kin of deceased Police constable-Dujiram Sharma. She submits that the appeal may be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submission made at Bar. 6. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2017 passed following order :- "To appreciate the controversy, the record of First Information Report No. 614/2004 registered at Police Station, Bayana, Bharatpur and Challan No. 3/2005 are required to be seen. SHO Police Station, Bayan is directed to produce the said record." 7. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the copy of the record was received by this Court. From the perusal of FIR Exhibit-1 which was lodged by Mr. Ramniwas, C.I., the then SHO Police Station Bayana himself at Police Station Bayana soon after visiting place of incident wherein it is clearly stated that he received a telephonic information that a Policeman is lying near Gumariya Fatak in front of hut of Babaji on main road, on which he visited the place where he found that Police constable in his uniform having name plate named Dujiram Sharma Belt No. 728 was lying dead there on the road and a motorcycle No. RJ-25/ G1773 was also lying there. 8. On the aforesaid report, by Mr. Ramniwas. C.I. FIR No. 614/2004 under Section 304-A of IPC was registered at Police Station Bayana and investigation commenced. 9. In the FIR, the presence of so-called eye witnesses AW-2 Man Singh and AW-3 Vijendra Singh is not there while in their respective affidavits submitted before the Tribunal for examination in chief both stated that :- ^^?kVuk LFky ij gekjs vykok vU; O;fDr ,oa iqfyl dh thi Hkh vk xbZ Fkh] iqfylokyksa us gekjs ls iwNrkN dj gekjs c;ku Hkh ntZ fd;s FksA ;g ?kVuk Vªd pkyd dh xyrh ls ?kfVr gqbZ Fkh] og ljklj nks"kh gSA** 10. From the perusal of charge-sheet, it reveals that statements of so-called eye witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 on 06.01.2005 about two months later, therefore their presence on spot at the time of incident and recording statements on the very date is false. 11. So far as reply to notice issued by Investigating Officer under Section 133 M.V. Act is concerned, the Truck was seized on 13.01.2005 that was also after two months, therefore the reply is also seems to be in collusive. 12. No other evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer to involve the vehicle in question. 13. 11. So far as reply to notice issued by Investigating Officer under Section 133 M.V. Act is concerned, the Truck was seized on 13.01.2005 that was also after two months, therefore the reply is also seems to be in collusive. 12. No other evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer to involve the vehicle in question. 13. Learned tribunal considering the evidence of eye witnesses and other documents submitted by claimants while deciding issue No.-1 observed that :- ^^tgka rd iqfyl }kjk bl izdj.k esa Vªd pkyd ckcwyky ds fo:) l{ke U;k;ky; esa pkyku izLrqr fd, tkus dk iz'u gS] i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkosth lk{; dks ns[kus ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd gLrxr ekeys esa nq?kZVuk dh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ e`rd ds eksVjlkbfdy lfgr nq?kZVukxzLr gksdj iM+s jgus dh vKkr O;fDr }kjk lwpuk izkIr gksus ds i'pkr~ iqfyl }kjk ekSds ij igqapus ds ckn mlh jkf= dks ntZ dj yh xbZ FkhA Lohd`r :i ls ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ vKkr O;fDr ds fo:) nq?kZVuk dkfjr djus ckcr~ ntZ dh xbZ gSA iqfyl }kjk izLrqr vafre fjiksVZ izn'kZ 14 ds vuqlkj pkyd ckcwyky ds fo:) bl ekeys esa l{ke U;k;ky; esa /kkjk 304, Hkk0na0la0 dk pkyku izLrqr gqvk gSA [ksn dk fo"k; gS fd iqfyl }kjk U;k;ky; esa pkyku izLrqr djus dh uk rks frfFk gLrk{kjksa dh uhps vafdr gS vkSj uk gh vkjksi i= esa vafdr fooj.kksa ds C;kSjs esa fooj.k ntZ fd;k x;k gSA bl izn'kZ ds lkFk lwph xokgku Hkh layXu dh xbZ gS] fdUrq bl lwph ds uhps Hkh Fkkukf/kdkjh us vius gLrk{kjksa ds uhps dksbZ frfFk vafdr ugha dh gSA lk{khx.k ekuflag o fotsUnz flag us Dyse ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa viuh lk{; esa nq?kZVuk ds fnu e`rd dh eksVjlkbZfdy ds ihNs lkbZfdy ls vkuk vkSj Lo;a ds lkeus Vªd }kjk VDdj ekjuk crk;k gSA viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa nksuksa gh lk{khx.k us ekSds ij rRdky iqfyl dk igqapuk o mlh le; muds c;ku ntZ dj fy;k tkuk crk;k gSA ekuflag us viuh izfrijh{kk esa crk;k gS fd nq?kZVuk ds ckn og jkLrsa esa fdlh ls ugha feyk mlus nq?kZVuk ds ckjs esa xkao esa fdlh dks ugha crk;k] iqfyl dks mlus dksbZ fjiksVZ ugha nh Fkh] og ?kk;y dks vLirky ysdj ugha x;k vkSj uk gh ?kk;y dks tkuuk vkfn crk;k gSA vius c;kuksa ls iwoZ mlus iqfyl dks dksbZ ckr ugha crkbZA xokg dk dFku gS fd mlds o fotsUnz ds iqfyl us nks ekg ckn c;ku fy, FksA lk{kh fotsUnz flag us Hkh ,d vkSj tgka viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa ?kVuk ds rqjUr ckn mldk ekSds ij igqapuk o iqfyl dk vkuk crk;k gS rFkk iqfyl }kjk mu ls iwNrkN dj muds c;ku ntZ fd;k tkuk crk;k gS] ogha izfrijh{kk esa ;g lk{kh iqfyl }kjk c;ku 15 fnu ckn fy;k tkuk dgrk gSA izfrijh{kk esa mlus crk;k gS fd igys 15 fnu ckn c;ku gq, vkSj fQj 2 ekg ckn c;ku gksuk crk;k gSA vc ;fn ge bu lk{khx.k ds iqfyl c;kuksa dh vkSj fuxkgsa Mkys] rks nksuksa gh lk{khx.k ds c;ku }kjk fnuakd 06-01-2005 dks vFkkZr~ dfFkr nq?kZVuk ds yxHkx 2 ekg ckn ntZ gq, gS] tSlk fd izn'kZ ,u0,0 1 ,oa ,u0,0 2 dks ns[kus ls izdV gksrk gSA ;fn bu xokgksa ds c;kuksa ds vuqlkj iqfyl rRdky ekSds ij igqap x;h Fkh vkSj iqfyl us mlh le; mu ls iwNrkN dj yh Fkh rFkk mlds ckn 15 fnu ds i'pkr~ tc muds c;ku fy, x;s Fks] rks fQj iqfyl }kjk iqu% 06-01-2005 dks vFkkZr~ nq?kZVuk ds djhc 2 ekg ds ckn muds c;ku ntZ fd, tkus ls nq?kZVukLFky ij bu lk{khx.k dh ekStwnxh dks lafnX/k cuk nsrk gSA iqfyl us ;fn vfHk;qDr ckcwyky dks nq?kZVuk ds ckn ekSds ls Hkkx tkuk ik;k Fkk] rFkk tc muds }kjk l{ke U;k;ky; esa mlds fo:) /kkjk 304, Hkk0na0la0 dk vkjksi i= izLrqr fd;k x;k] rks bl /kkjk ds vykok eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e esa izkof/kr /kkjk 134@187 ,e0oh0,DV ds rgr vfHk;qDr ds fo:) pkyku D;ksa ugh izLrqr fd;k x;k\ bu lHkh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, iqfyl dh Hkh bl izdj.k esa Hkwfedk lafnX/k izrhr gksrh gSA dgk tk ldrk gS fd mDr nksuksa lk{khx.k ekSds ij ekStwn gh ugha Fks vkSj muds }kjk Lo;a dks nq?kZVuk ds rF;ksa dh tkudkjh gksuk crkrs gq, >wBs rkSj ij Lo;a dks varoZfyr djrs gq, izkFkhZx.k dks Dyse fnyokus dh ps"Vk dh xbZ gSA Lohd`r :i ls eksVj nq?kZVuk nkoksa ds ekeys esa lk{; dk lw{erk ls foospu fd;k tkuk vko';d ugha gS rFkk tks U;kf;d fofu'p; fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZx.k dh vkSj ls izLrqr fd, x;s gSa muesa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ij eSa vknjiwoZd viuh lgefr O;Dr djrk gwa ijUrq tks rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ka bl ekeys esa lkeus vkbZ gS] mudks /;ku esa j[krs gq, ,oa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d fofu'p; 2004 vkj0,0vkj0 543 jkt0 ekykjke cuke :ikjke esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa dh jks'kuh esa bl ekeys esa dfFkr :i ls nks"kh okgu dh lafyIrrk dks izkFkhZx.k fl) djus esa vlQy jgs gSA vf/kdj.k dk ;g drZO; gS fd og Dyse ;kfpdk dks leLr dks.kksa ls tkpa dj gh viuk fu.kZ; ikfjr djsaA mYys[kuh; gS fd bl izdj.k esa e`rd ,d iqfyldehZ jgk gS vkSj iqfyl us vfHk;qDr ds fo:) lEcfU/kr /kkjkvksa esa mls nq?kZVuk dk nks"kh ekurs gq, pkyku is'k djus esa ftl izdkj ls lk{khx.k dks ekeys ls lafyIr djus dk tks iz;kl fd;k gS] og fuanuh; gSA dqy feykdj tks rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ka lkeus vkbZ gSa] mUgsaa ns[krs gq, esjh fouez jk; esa izkFkhZx.k }kjk ftu lk{khx.k dks crkSj p'enhn lk{kh is'k fd;k x;k gS] mudh Hkwfedk lafnX/k gS vkSj mUgsa p'enhn lk{kh ugha ekuk tk ldrkA mYys[kuh; gS fd bu lk{khx.k dk ;g vkpj.k Hkh LokHkfod ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd fdlh ?kk;y ds muds lkeus nq?kZVukxzLr gks tkus ds i'pkr~ o mldh e`R;q gks tkus ds ckotwn bl rF; dk ftØ xkao esa fdlh ls ugha djsa ;k ml O;fDr ds fdlh fudVre fj'rsnkj dks ,slh nq?kZVuk ls voxr ugha djk;saA ;gka ;g mYys[k dj fn;k tkuk Hkh lehphu gksxk fd DysesUVl dh vkSj ls muds fo}ku vf/koDrk us vius rdkZsa ds leFkZu esa ftu U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa dks is'k fd;k gS] muds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ka bl ekeys ls fHkUu ikbZ xbZ gS vkSj muesa ;FkkLFkku foi{khx.k okgu pkyd@okgu Lokeh }kj nq?kZVuk dh LohdkjksfDr dh xbZ gS] tSls fd rF; bl ekeys esa ugha ik;s x;s gSA** which doesn't require any interference by this Court. 14. So far as the facts of aforesaid case laws cited by learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, the facts of cases are altogether different from the case of present appeal which doesn't help the appellants. In view of above, the appeal devoids merit which is hereby dismissed and the impugned judgment is affirmed. 15. Record of the Tribunal be returned with the copy of the judgment forthwith.