Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 695 (RAJ)

Laxman Ram S/o Pusaram v. Gopiram S/o Sukhdevram

2024-04-29

REKHA BORANA

body2024
JUDGMENT : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment & award dated 18.07.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Makrana, District Nagaur in MAC Case No.104/2014 (CIS No.42/2020) whereby the claim petition as preferred by the injured claimant has been dismissed. 2. The following issues were framed in the present matter : HINDI IMAGE 3. While deciding issue No.3, in view of the preliminary objections raised by the Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal framed four points for consideration : HINDI IMAGE 4. The learned Tribunal while elaborately considering the evidence as recorded, specifically concluded that the present is a clear case of subsequent implication of a vehicle. Learned Tribunal took into consideration the fact that the criminal complaint was filed on 21.09.2013 qua the accident which occurred on 21.08.2013 i.e. after a period of one month. Admittedly, in the present matter, the injured suffered only one fracture and qua the same, he was admitted in hospital on 21.08.2013 and was discharged on 28.08.2013. Despite having been discharged on 28.08.2013 and there being only one grievous injury caused to the injured, the complaint was filed on 21.09.2013. 5. Further, the learned Tribunal took into consideration the specific fact that the alleged eye witness Prema Ram (AW2), in his examination-in-chief, did not even disclose the number of the vehicle. He rather admitted that there was no number on the vehicle which caused the accident. Further, the said witness clearly admitted the fact that Gopi Ram, the alleged driver of the vehicle and the claimant Laxman Ram were close relatives. 6. The learned Tribunal also took into consideration the specific fact that the registered owner of the vehicle in question, NAW2 Sohan Lal, clearly denied the factum of accident. He denied the fact of having lent the motorcycle in question to Gopi Ram, the alleged driver. He even deposed that he was pressurised to sign on the reply to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 7. The learned Tribunal also took into consideration the statements of the claimant Laxman Ram (AW1) himself who specifically deposed that in the accident in question, he suffered only one injury and others were only simple bruises. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the police, in its investigation, found the driver of the alleged vehicle guilty and filed the charge-sheet against him. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the police, in its investigation, found the driver of the alleged vehicle guilty and filed the charge-sheet against him. There was no reason for the learned Tribunal to disbelieve the said documents of the investigating agency and holding to the contrary. Learned counsel submitted that the strict principles of evidence do not apply to the motor accident claim cases and the claimants are not required to prove the negligence beyond a reasonable doubt. Learned counsel further submitted that as is the settled position of law, only because of the FIR having been lodged with a delay, no adverse inference against the claimants could have been drawn. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for quashing and setting aside of the impugned award dated 18.07.2022. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and pursued the material available on record. 10. Before entering into the analysis of the facts and the evidence on record, it is relevant to note the relationship between the parties concerned. As is clear on record, the alleged eye witness Prema Ram (AW2) is the nephew of claimant Laxman Ram. The driver Gopi Ram is a resident of the same village to which Laxman Ram belongs and both are well known to each other. Further, the owner of the vehicle in question i.e. Sohan Lal is not only a close relative of claimant Laxman Ram but also his neighbour. Further, Gopi Ram i.e. driver of the vehicle is first cousin of owner Sohan Lal. Meaning thereby, all the four persons i.e. claimant Laxman Ram, driver Gopi Ram, owner Sohan Lal and alleged eye witness Prema Ram are very well known to each other and even the relatives. 11. Admittedly, the FIR qua the accident of 21.08.2013 was lodged on 21.09.2013 i.e. after a period of one month. In the FIR, no number of the vehicle was mentioned, however, the name of the driver was very well mentioned to be ‘Gopi Ram’. AW2 Prema Ram, the alleged eye witness, in his examination-in-chief, specifically deposed as under : ^^nq?kZVuk ds oDr eksVjlkbfdy ij uacj ugh FksA^^ As observed above, when Gopi Ram was the relative of the claimant and very well known to him and his family, it is quite strange as to why the number of the vehicle was not mentioned in the FIR. It is further more strange as to why the number of the vehicle was not reflected in the FIR which was lodged after a month of the accident. Further, even the site map which was prepared on 03.10.2013 also mentions the accident to be caused by a motorcycle not bearing any number ¼fcuk uEcjh eksVjlkbfdy½ Meaning thereby, even if the factum of the accident is accepted, the same been caused by the alleged motorcycle is not proved on record. Further, even if the fact of Gopi Ram being the driver and causing the accident is also accepted to be true, he driving the motorcycle bearing No.RJ-37-SF-0754 cannot be accepted. It is crystal clear that the alleged motorcycle bearing No.RJ-37-SF-0754 was subsequently implicated. 12. The fact of the alleged motorcycle been subsequently implicated is further fortified from the fact that at the first instance, the claim petition was preferred only against the driver and the insurer. The owner of the vehicle i.e. Sohan Lal was not impleaded and in the said claim petition, Gopi Ram, the driver of the vehicle, was mentioned to be the owner of the vehicle also. However, subsequently the claim petition was amended and Sohan Lal was impleaded as party respondent and he was alleged to be the owner of the vehicle. 13. The fact is further fortified by the statements of owner of the vehicle Sohan Lal (NAW2) who specifically admitted in his cross-examination as under : HINDI IMAGE What has been admitted by Sohan Lal is firstly, that Gopi Ram was his first cousin and secondly, that Laxman Ram was his relative and also his neighbour. He specifically denied the accident having been caused by the vehicle in question. He further clearly denied the fact of having lent the motorcycle to Gopi Ram. So far as the reply to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is concerned, he deposed that because his motorcycle was seized, he, under duress, put signatures on the papers so as to get his vehicle released. 14. The fact of the alleged vehicle not being involved in the accident is also fortified from the plea as made by Gopi Ram in his reply wherein he specifically denied the fact of accident and stated that he was implicated in the matter by Prema Ram because of some personal vengeance. 15. 14. The fact of the alleged vehicle not being involved in the accident is also fortified from the plea as made by Gopi Ram in his reply wherein he specifically denied the fact of accident and stated that he was implicated in the matter by Prema Ram because of some personal vengeance. 15. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the accident having been caused by the alleged vehicle was not at all proved on record and therefore, the rejection of the claim petition by the learned Tribunal was totally in consonance with the material available on record. Further, in the present circumstances where the owner of the vehicle has specifically denied the involvement of his vehicle in the accident and he having lent his motorcycle to Gopi Ram, it cannot be held that the owner had breached any condition of the insurance policy. 16. One more glaring fact needs to be taken note of by this Court. The registration certificate (Exhibit-7) of the alleged vehicle is reflected to have been issued on 05.02.2013. The same reflects the year of manufacture to be 2013 and date of purchase to be 18.01.2013. However, interestingly the insurance policy (Exhibit-8) reflects the same to be issued for a period from 14.11.2012 to 13.11.2013. How the policy for the vehicle manufactured in the year 2013 and purchased in January 2013, could have been issued in the month of November 2012 is beyond comprehension. 17. So far as the grounds raised by learned counsel for the appellant are concerned, it is clear on record that the learned Tribunal did not reject the claim petition on the sole ground of a delayed FIR. There is no dispute on the position of law that the delay in lodging an FIR cannot be fatal in a motor accident claim case. However, as analyzed in detail in the preceding paras, the rejection of the claim of the claimant being not at all on the sole ground of delayed FIR, the award impugned does not deserve any interference on that count. 18. The overall facts of the case makes it crystal clear that the whole story as framed by the claimant is a fishy one and does not deserve any reliance. The findings as recorded by the learned Tribunal therefore does not deserve any interference and the present appeal being devoid of merit is hence, dismissed. 19. 18. The overall facts of the case makes it crystal clear that the whole story as framed by the claimant is a fishy one and does not deserve any reliance. The findings as recorded by the learned Tribunal therefore does not deserve any interference and the present appeal being devoid of merit is hence, dismissed. 19. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.