Uttarakhand High Court
Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Shashi Devi And Five Others on 15 July, 2024
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
15TH JULY, 2024
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.182 OF 2012
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. .....Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shashi Devi and five Others .....Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Krishan Kant Joshi,
Advocate holding brief of
Mr. H.C. Pande, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate.
- Claimants
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
The present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, "Act, 1988") has been filed by the insurer against the Award dated 04.02.2012, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.135 of 2007, "Smt. Shashi Devi and Others vs. Mumtaz Ayubi and Another", filed under Section 163A of the Act, 1988, by which, the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,45,000/- as compensation along with an interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its actual realization. 2
2. The brief facts are that Rajpal Singh (deceased) was a painter. His annual income was Rs.40,000/-. He was aged 29 years on the date of the accident. This unfortunate incident occurred on 08.10.2006 at around 06:00 p.m. on Kashipur road before village Parmanand turn when the deceased was going to his house on his Suzuki motorcycle bearing No.UA06/0873. One Mahindra Scorpio bearing Registration No.DL-3C-AS-1047 came and dashed against the said motorcycle, as a result, Rajpal Singh received grievous injuries. He died the same day during his treatment in Government Hospital, Kashipur. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 09.10.2006 and the First Information Report was lodged by Satpal Singh, the brother of the deceased, on the same day i.e. 09.10.2006. The First Information Report was registered under Sections 279, 304A and Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the driver of the Scorpio bearing No.DL-03C-1047.
3. The respondent nos.1 to 5 - claimants sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) from 3 the appellant - Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle under different heads.
4. The respondent no.6, the owner of the Mahindra Scorpio bearing No.DL3C-AS-1047, denied its involvement in the alleged accident. He pleaded that he had valid registration certificate of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant - Insurance Company and it was being plied by the driver - Gurmej Singh who had a valid and effective driving license at the time of the alleged accident. He further pleaded that Gurmej Singh died in an another accident on 31.08.2007.
5. The Insurance Company, the present appellant, denied the claim petition.
6. The claimants filed copies of FIR, closure report and post-mortem report.
7. The owner of the offending vehicle filed copies of Insurance Cover Note, Registration Certificate and copy of the Driving License of Gurmej Singh.
8. The Insurance Company filed copies of Investigation Report of its Surveyor, closure report, First Information Report, Parivar Register and copy of the post-mortem report.
4
9. Before the Tribunal, respondent no.1 Smt. Shashi Devi was examined as PW1 along with Surendra Singh, PW2, the eye-witness of the accident.
10. The appellant did not adduce any oral evidence.
11. I have heard Mr. Krishan Kant Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. H.C. Pande, Advocate, and Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent no.6, the owner of the offending vehicle.
12. The offending vehicle Mahindra Scorpio bearing Registration No.DL-3C-AS-1047 was insured with the appellant. The Registration Certificate of the said vehicle was valid and the driver of the said offending vehicle had valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident.
13. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that as per the First Information Report, the registration number of the Mahindra Scorpio was DL-3C-1047, which is the number of a Maruti 800, therefore, the Investigating Officer had filed a closure report after finding no accident involving the Maruti 800; the learned Tribunal has committed gross error by brushing aside 5 the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident; and, there is collusion between the claimants and the respondent no.6, the owner of the offending vehicle.
14. Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate, appearing for the respondents - claimants, has supported the impugned Award.
15. The report of the Insurance Surveyor and the investigation conducted in the said First Information Report reveal that on 08.10.2006, when the deceased Rajpal Singh was going on his motorcycle, an accident took place in which he died. It is clearly stated in the FIR that the Scorpio came and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. In the FIR, the registration number of the offending vehicle Scorpio is mentioned as DL-3C-1047 and the complete Registration No. DL-3C- AS-1047 is not mentioned, but, this fact alone is not sufficient to dismiss the claim petition.
16. The appellant has not adduced any oral evidence, whereas the eye-witness of this accident Surendra Singh, PW2, has stated that on 08.10.2006, when the deceased Rajpal Singh was going on his 6 motorcycle, the Scorpio bearing Registration No.DL-3C- AS-1047 dashed the motorcycle, in which Rajpal Singh suffered grievous injuries. Even during his cross- examination by the appellant - Insurance Company, he stated that he had seen the accident. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve or discard the evidence of Surendra Singh, PW2, the eye-witness.
17. In view of above, I find no merit in this Appeal. The appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
18. The statutory amount i.e. Rs.25,000/-, deposited by the appellant - Insurance Company, is remitted to the concerned Tribunal. The amount deposited by the appellant - Insurance Company shall be released in favour of the respondents - claimants as per their respective shares and without asking for any security/ surety from them.
__________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 15th July, 2024 Pant/