Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: arsh in Master Arsh vs Saravjeet Singh & Ors on 15 October, 2014Matching Fragments
1. The present claim petition filed u/s 166/140 Motor Vehicle Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.02.2012 at around 03.00pm, when injured Master Arsh was standing in front of his house at 171, Kama Vashila, Sector1, Ghaziabad, Uttar Praadesh, offending car bearing no. DL7CH6113 driven by R1 in rash and negligent manner hit the minor injured due to which he fell down and suffered grievous injuries, thereafter immediately removed to Pushpanjali Crosslay Hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad.
3. An FIR No. 284/12 under Section 279/338 IPC, PSIndrapuram was registered on the complaint filed by PW1 Sageer Ahmed, father of the minor petitioner on 16.02.2012. During investigation police prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, collected discharge summary , X ray reports of minor petitioner Master Arsh, seized the offending vehicle i.e Omni car bearing no. DL7CH6113, conducted its mechanical inspection, arrested respondent no.1 driver. On completion of investigation found respondent no.1 driver accused of rash and negligent driving, hence chargesheeted him for the commission of offence u/s 279/338 IPC.
4. During proceedings, insurance company in its WS raised the plea that the FIR was lodged belatedly and also reserved its right to raise statutory defence but admitted that offending vehicle was insured on the day of accident. R1 and R2 in WS took the plea that accident was not caused by the offending vehicle and Suit no. 206/13, Master Arsh Vs Saravjeet Singh & ors (Pg 2 of 8) false FIR was registered by the police.
5. From pleadings, following issues were framed: (1.) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in an accident which took place on 16.02.2012 at about 03.00pm, involving offending vehicle i.e Maruti Van bearing no. DL7CH6113 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent/driver, owned by respondent/owner and insured by respondent no. 3 (insurance company)? OPP.
7. After hearing arguments and considering the material on record, my issue wise findings are as follows: Issue no. 1 (Negligence)
8. PW1 Sageer Ahmed father of the minor petitioner in his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/1) stated that minor petitioner suffered injuries due to rash and Suit no. 206/13, Master Arsh Vs Saravjeet Singh & ors (Pg 3 of 8) negligent driving of R1, though he is not the eye witness, his statement is duly corroborated by police investigation. Police during investigation also found respondent no.1 accused of rash and negligent driving hence chargesheet him for commission of offence u/s 279/338 IPC. No evidence to the contrary led by driver and owner.