Sangeeta vs Ramakishan on 10 July, 2024

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sangeeta vs Ramakishan on 10 July, 2024

1. The present civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 04.03.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jodhpur (Raj.) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.206/2017 whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim (Downloaded on 19/07/2024 at 09:33:44 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:27312] (2 of 8) [CMA-738/2021] petition preferred by the appellants i.e. the claimants under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

2. The unfortunate road accident happened on 01.11.2016 at about 11:00 A.M. when Hetaram @ Hetram (since deceased) was going to Hamir Phata Bus Stand on foot. A Bolero bearing registration No.RJ19-GC-5272 came around and hit Hetaram @ Hetram from behind and as a result whereof he suffered grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claim preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the learned Tribunal in ignorance of the FIR, statements of the eye witnesses and other material produced before the learned Tribunal and mainly on the ground that the FIR was lodged after a delay of about one month; the proceedings under Section 133 & 134 of the MV Act were conducted on the very same day; deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle belong to the same caste and were residents of the same Tehsil etc. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned judgment has been passed in ignorance of the facts and law applicable in the case and only on the basis of suspicion, without there being any foundation for the same. It was thus urged that the impugned judgment and award dated 04.03.2021 be set aside and the respondents may be directed to pay the compensation to the appellants - claimants. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the following judgments:

• United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Shyama Devi & Ors. (S.B. CMA No.878/2012) (Downloaded on 19/07/2024 at 09:33:44 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:27312] (3 of 8) [CMA-738/2021] • Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Smt. Shubhla & Ors. (S.B. CMA No.1239/2019) • Janabai & ors. Vs. M/s. I.C.I.C.I. Lambord Insurance Company Limited (SLP (Civil) No.21077/2019)

4. Per Contra, Leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 - insurance company submitted that in the present case, delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained by the claimants. Merely because the chargesheet has been filed by the investigating agency after conducting investigation, before the competent criminal court, the same is not sufficient to prove the negligence of the non-claimants. Learned counsel further submitted that initially, on 01.11.2016 the deceased was admitted in the M.D.M Hospital and after receiving the initial treatment, he was discharged on 03.11.2016. Thereafter, on 04.11.2016, he was again admitted to the hospital for treatment, whereupon his brother namely Om Prakash and his father-in-law namely Balwanta Ram informed the Hospital authorities in writing that they did not want to lodge any criminal case in the matter.

5. Learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence worth the name available on record of the case to prove that the alleged accident took place from a particular vehicle being driven by a particular driver and the claimants in the present case are trying to manipulate the case only with a view to get damages from the insurance company i.e. respondent No.3. He thus prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has placed reliance in the following judgments in support of his arguments:

(Downloaded on 19/07/2024 at 09:33:44 PM)

[2024:RJ-JD:27312] (4 of 8) [CMA-738/2021] • Ramchandra Vs. Ramchandra (CMA No.457/1999 • Jansi Ram Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors report in 2014 2 ACC pate 743 • Prakash Kumar @ Pukhraj Vs. Dungar Singh reported in 2012 Supreme Raj Pate 1410 • Shabbeer Khan Vs. Gaurav Sharma reported in 2014 (1) DNJ Page 412 • Mahendra Vs. Girdhari & Others (S.B. CMA No.4403/2009) • Vijay Laxmi Devi & Ors. Vs. Ram Naresh & Ors. 2003 ACJ Page 1140 • Pushpendra Singh Vs. Samay Singh @ Tofani & Ors.

2007(1) ACC Page 793 • Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Akeela Bano W/o Late Sujauddin 2023(1) DNJ Page 431

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.

7. The relevant portion of the reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 - insurance company is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

"02- ;g gS fd e`rd gsrkjke mQZ gsrjke vius eksckbZy ij ckrphr djrs gq, lM+d ds chpks&chp ;krk;kr fu;eksa dk mYya?ku djrs gq, ihNs ls vk jgs okgu dks utj&vUnkt djrs gq, jksM+ dks Øksl djrs oDr mijksDr nq?kZVuk dkfjr gqbZA vFkkZr~ e`rd gsrkjke mQZ gsrjke th Lo;a dh xyrh ds dkj.k nq?kZVuk ?kfVr gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZx.k vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 chek dEiuh ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dh {kfriwfrZ jkf"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

--------------

04- ;g gS fd vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk uksfVl vUrxZr /kkjk 133 o 134 ,e-oh- ,DV okgu ekfyd o pkyd dks fnukad 15-12-2016 dks tokc gsrq izsf'kr fd;k x;k tks lansgkLin o fo"okl djus ;ksX; ugha gSA bl dkj.k izkFkhZx.k vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 chek (Downloaded on 19/07/2024 at 09:33:44 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:27312] (5 of 8) [CMA-738/2021] dEiuh ls fdlh Hkh izdkj ls {kfriwfrZ jkf"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA"

8. The finding recorded by learned Tribunal while deciding issues No.1 & 2, against the claimants reads as under:

"rudh la[;k ,d o nks %& 12& nksuksa rufd;ksa es ç'uxr okgu dh fyIrrk dk ç'u vUrofyZr gksus ds dkj.k nksuksa rufd;ksa dk fuLrkj.k ,d lkFk fd;k tk jgk gSA 13& çkFkÊx.k dh vksj ls mifLFkr ,-MCY;w 1 laxhrk ?kVuk dh p{kq lk{kh ugh gSA çkFkÊx.k dh vksj ls p{kq lk{kh ds :i esa ,-MCY;w 2 daojyky dks is'k dj ijhf{kr djok;k x;k gSA mä xokg us eq[; ijh{k.k esa dFku fd;k gS fd fnukad 01-11-2016 dks og vius ?kj ds ckgj pkSdh ij cSBk FkkA lqcg djhc 11-00 cts gsrjke iSny iSny jksM ds lkbZM esa vk jgk FkkA mlds ihNs ls ,d cksysjks dsEij uEcj vkj-ts- 19 th-lh- 5272 rst xfr o ykijokgh ls pyrh gqbZ vkbZ vkSj gsrjke ds VDdj ekj nhA nq?kZVuk ds ckn cksysjks jksM ds uhps lkbZM esa vkdj can gks xbZA mlus xkMh pkyd dk uke iwNk rks mlus viuk uke jkekfd'ku crk;kA mlh x kMh esa ?kk;y gsrjke dks Mky dj vkSfl;ka vLirky vk;sA ?kk;y ds ?kj okys ?kk;y dks tksèkiqj vLirky ys x;sA 14& chek daiuh dh vksj ls dh xbZ ftjg esa xokg us dFku fd;k gS fd iqfyl 01 ekg ckn mlds ikl vkbZ FkhA iqfyl us ekSdk dk;Zokgh mlds lkeus ugha dhA gsrjke mldk tkfr HkkbZ gSA onr nq?kZVuk cksysjks pkyd 'kjkc ih;k gqvk FkkA 15& bl çdkj ,-MCY;w 2 daojyky us vius lkeus nq?kZVuk dkfjr gksuk crk;k gSA 16& tgka rd nLrkosth lk{; dk ç'u gS] çFke lwpuk fjiksVZ çn'kZ 02 ds voyksdu ls çdV gksrk gS fd fnukad 01-11-2016 dh nq?kZVuk ds lacaèk esa 01-12-2016 dks çFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djokbZ xbZ gSA chek daiuh dh vksj ls is'k fd;s x;s ifjokn dh çekf.kr çfr çn'kZ ,u, 1 ds voyksdu ls çdV gksrk gS fd fnukad 01-11-2016 dh nq?kZVuk ds lacaèk esa U;kf;d eftLVªsV vksfl;ka ds le{k ifjokn fnukad 16-11-2016 dks is'k fd;k x;k gSA mä ifjokn ds en la[;k nks ds voyksdu ls çdV gksrk gS fd e`rd dh e`R;q 04-11-2016 dks gks xbZ FkhA bl çdkj fnukad 01- 11-2016 dh nq?kZVuk ds lacaèk esa ifjokn 16 fnu ckn fnukad 16-11-2016 dks is'k fd;k x;k gSA ç'uxr okgu dh QnZ tCrh çn'kZ ,u-, 4 ds voyksdu ls çdV gksrk gS fd mä okgu dks fnukad 15-12-2016 dks tCr fd;k x;k gSA tCrh ds le; okgu esa fdlh çdkj dk ,DlhMsaV dk vkykekr gksus dk bUækt QnZ tCrh esa ugh gSA uksfVl vUrxZr èkkjk 133 eksVj;ku vfèkfu;e çn'kZ 04 o uksfVl vUrxZr èkkjk 134 eksVj;ku vfèkfu;e çn'kZ 05 Hkh fnukad 15-12-2016 dks fn;s x;s gSaA bl çdkj okgu dh tCrh o eksVj;ku vfèkfu;e ds vUrxZr fn;s x;s uksfVlksa ls çrhr gksrk gS fd okgu dks tCr djus ls ysdj uksfVl vkfn fn;s tkus dks lHkh dk;Zokfg;ka ,d gh fnu fnukad 15-12-2016 dks gh dh xbZ gSA 17& bl çdkj i=koyh ij vkbZ ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ls ;g çrhr gksrk gS fd nq?kZVuk fnukad 01-11-2016 ls ysdj ifjokn is'k djus (Downloaded on 19/07/2024 at 09:33:44 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:27312] (6 of 8) [CMA-738/2021] dh rkjh[k 16-11-2016 ds chp dh vofèk dk ,slk dksbZ Hkh nLrkost çkFkÊx.k dh vksj ls is'k ugh fd;k x;k gS ftlls ;g çrhr gksrk gks fd ç'uxr okgu ls nq?kZVuk dkfjr gqbZ gSA e`rd ds HkkbZ ifjoknh efgjke us ifjokn esa ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd okgu pkyd }kjk bykt djokus o nokb;ksa dk iSlk nsus dk vk"oklu fn;s tkus ds dkj.k HkkbZ dk bykt djokuk t:jh le> dj bykt 'kq: djok;kA ;fn ifjoknh }kjk ifjokn esa vafdr mä bckjr ij fo"okl fd;k tkos vkSj ;g ekuk tkos fd okgu pkyd }kjk bykt dk vk"oklu nsus ds dkj.k os fjiksVZ ugh djk lds rks tc e`rd gsrjke dh 04-11-2016 dks e`R;q gks xbZ Fkh rc bykt dk [kpkZ nsus dk dksbZ ç'u gh ugha jg x;k FkkA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa çkFkÊx.k dks vfoyEc fjiksVZ djokuh pkfg, FkhA ijUrq 12 fnu rd çkFkÊx.k dh vksj ls nq?kZVuk ds lacaèk esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugh fd;k tkuk ç'uxr okgu dh nq?kZVuk esa fyIrrk dks lafnXèk dj nsrk gSA 18& i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh çdV gksrk gS fd e`rd] okgu pkyd ,oa Lokeh ,d gh tkfr o ,d gh rglhy vkSfl;ka ds fuoklh gSaA mDr rF; ç'uxr okgu dks nq?kZVuk esa feF;k fyIr djus dks cy çnku djrk gSA 19& bl izdkj i=koyh ij vkbZ lEiw.kZ ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ds xgu voyksdu] foospu ,oa fo"ys'k.k ds i"pkr vf/kdj.k dh fouez jk; esa fnukad 01-11-2016 dh nq?kZVuk ds laca/k esa izkFkhZx.k }kjk fnukad 16- 11-2016 rd dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha fd;k tkuk] u gh iz"uxr okgu dk [kqyklk fd;k tkuk] iz"uxr okgu dks djhc Ms< ekg ckn tCr fd;k tkuk rFkk okgu dh tCrh o uksfVl 133 o 134 eksVj;ku vf/kfu;e dh lHkh dk;Zokfg;ka ,d gh fnu esa fd;k tkuk] e`rd o okgu pkyd rFkk Lokeh ,d gh tkfr o ,d gh rglhy ds gksuk] okgu pkyd }kjk e`rd ds bykt dk [kpkZ mBkus dk vk"oklu nsus dh ckr fnukad 04-11-2016 dks e`rd dh e`R;q gks tkus ds dkj.k O;FkZ gks tkuk vkSj fQj Hkh fnukad 16-11-2016 rd iqfyl dk;Zokgh ugh djuk] mDr lHkh rF; iz"uxr okgu dh fyIrrk dks lafnX/k dj nsrs gSA ifj.kker% rudh la[;k ,d izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) ,oa rudh la[;k nks vizkFkhZ chek daiuh ds i{k esa fu.khZr dh tkrh gSA"

9. A bare perusal of the impugned award reveals that the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal are based on failure of the claimants in lodging of the FIR immediately after the accident. Much stress has been given by the learned Tribunal on the fact that the claimants and respondents No.1 & 2 i.e. the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle belong to the same caste and are residents of the same Tehsil.

10. True it is, that lodging of the FIR immediately after an accident is desirable but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact (Downloaded on 19/07/2024 at 09:33:44 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:27312] (7 of 8) [CMA-738/2021] that the road accident in the present case has taken place in a remote area, where the nearest Police Station might have been inaccessible. The record of the case shows that the FIR was lodged only when the appellants had filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Police, after making a thorough investigation in the matter filed the chargesheet against the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle before the competent criminal court.

The claimants have also placed on record the documents indicating that Hetaram @ Hetram after the accident was taken to a Government Hospital and was provided treatment for the injuries sustained by him. No reason whatsoever, has been given by the learned Tribunal for not accepting the factum of road accident to be correct, particularly when the documents issued by a Government Hospital were available on record.

It is also to be noticed that an eye-witness of the incident was also examined on behalf of the claimants. Thus, the claimants have discharged their burden to prove the manner of accident.

11. Considering the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal was not justified in deciding the issue Nos.1 & 2 of the claim petition against the claimants on the ground of delay in lodging of the FIR. Learned Tribunal was expected to analyse the entire evidence and material of the case as available on record and thereafter adjudicate upon the issues framed by it.

12. In the result, the present civil misc. appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 04.03.2021 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the concerned (Downloaded on 19/07/2024 at 09:33:44 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:27312] (8 of 8) [CMA-738/2021] Tribunal for fresh decision on issues No.1 to 4, on the basis of the evidence and other material available on record and also keeping in mind the observations made by this Court in preceding Paras. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 20.08.2024. The learned Tribunal is directed to decide the matter within 6 months from 20.08.2024.

13. The registry is directed to send back the record of the case forthwith.

14. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 54-mohit/-

(Downloaded on 19/07/2024 at 09:33:44 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur