Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. The learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that Harish Kumar respondent no.1 is in the habit of offering himself either as driver or as owner of the offending vehic vehicle le in all the accident cases whichever and wherever it take place. The learned counsel for the insurance company has examined Balram D.R.K.. Sessions R Record ecord Room Sonepat Sonepat as RWI who has brought the summoned file relating to claim petition titled Murti Devi Vs. Rai Kumar decided on 29.11.2003. The he case file of MACT case titled as Randhir Singh Vs. Raj Kumar and case case file titled as Urmila Vs. Raj Kumar. All these three claim petitions were consolidated having arisen out of the same accident. The learned counsel counsel for the insurance company company-respondent respondent no.3 has examined Pawan Kumar Addl. Ahlmad to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Class Karnal as RW2 who has brought the FAO- 1631-2006 2006 (O&M) -12- summoned file of criminal case titled as State Vs. Jati Singh. FIR 279, 337, 338, 340 IPC. In the said case the FIR was lodged against an unknown truck driver. The certified copy of the FIR is Ex. R10. Copy of report under section 173 Cr.P.C. is is Ex. R11. As per recovery memo Harish Kumar son of Shankar Dass Dass had taken superdari of offending truck and registration certificate of the truck shows him the owner of the truck. Copy of superdaginama has also been placed on record as Ex.R12. The learned counsel for respondent no.3 has exam examined ined Pawan Kumar.

                               Record Keeper,
                                      Ke      Judicial Record Room
                                                              Room, Karnal as RW,.. who has

brought the summoned file of criminal case titled State vs. Krishan Kumar bearing FIR No. 786 of 1998, 1998, under sections 279. 336. 338 decided on 23.10.2000. The FIR was registered against an unknown truck driver driver and Harish Kumar was later on shown as driver of the truck. In that case also, application Ex.R16 was move moved d for taking the truck on superdari superdari by Harish Kumar and certified copy of superdaginam is Ex.R17. Copy of judgment has been placed on superdaginama record as Ex. R18. He has also brought the criminal file titled as State Vs. Kulwant Singh FIR No.336, No.336, under sections 279, 304-A A IPC. In that case also application for release of truck on superdari was moved by Harish Kumar son of Shankar Dass. He has also brought the criminal case file of case State Vs. Raj Kumar,, FIR No.31 of 1999, under sections 279, 337, 304-A A IPC. The vehicle involved in that accident was taken into police possession from Harish Kumar son of FAO- 1631-2006 2006 (O&M) -13- Shankar Dass and application for release of said vehi vehicle cle (Tata Sumo) was moved by Harish Kumar son of Shankar Dass. Sanjay Kumar Addl. Ahlmad of the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,.

Criminal Ahlmad of the court of J.M.I.C. Sonepat RW11 has brought the file of criminal criminal case titled State Vs. Raj Kumar under sections 279, 337, 37, 338 and 304-A 304 A IPC. In that cas casee also application for releasing the truck on superdari was moved by Harish Kumar son of Shankar Dass, the copies copies of application, police report, order of releasing eleasing the truck on superdari are Ex. R78 to Ex.R80. Superdaginama is Ex. R81 and surety sur bond is Ex.R82.

12. Pawan Kumar, Additional Ahlmad to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, IInd Class, Kaithal, was examined as RW RW-2, who o brought the summoned file of all criminal cases. As per recovery memo, Harish Kumar had taken superdari of the offending truck and registration certificate of the truck shows him to be the owner of the truck. The record of many FIRs was produced before the learned Tribunal, in which, Harish Kumar was driver of the offending FAO- 1631-2006 2006 (O&M) -34- vehicle which shows that the driver Harish Kumar was involved in many FIRs, registered against him under Sections 279, 337, 338, 340, 304 304-A A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judicial judicial record of the cases was produced by the Ahlmad concerned. The learned Tribunal even after examining the record regarding superdari of the offending vehicle taken by Harish Kumar driver respondent No.1 held that Harish Kumar cannot be omnipresent in al alll the cases of hit and run. The Tribunal totally ignored the judicial record placed before it.