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 vehicle in all the accident cases whichever and wherever it take place. The learne learned d counsel for the insurance company has examined Balram D.R.K.. Sessions R Record ecord Room Sonepat at 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 Ra 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 for the insurance company company-respondent respondent no.3 has examined Pawan Kumar Addl. A Ahlmad hlmad to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Class Karnal as RW2 who has brought the 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 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 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 examined ined Pawan Kumar.

TRIPTI SAINI                   Record Keeper, Judicial Record Room
                                                              Room, Karnal as RW,.. who has



            FAO- 1519-2006
                     2006 (O&M)                                                    -12-

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 regist registered ered against an unknown truck 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 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 Shankar Dass and application application for release of said vehicle (Tata Sumo) was moved by Harish Kumar son of Shankar Dass. Sanjay Kumar Addl. Ahlmad of the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,.

            FAO- 1519-2006
                     2006 (O&M)                                                    -14-

decided on 5.10.2004. The certified copies of claim petition, power of attorney, zimini orders dated 3.6.2003, 11.4.2003 and judgment dated attorney, 5.10.2004 are Ex.R56 to Ex. R60 rrespectively. Balbir Singh, Criminal Ahlmad of the Court of learned S. D. J. M. Gohana has been examined as RW7 who has brought the criminal case file titled State vs. Jaspal Singh, under sections 279, 304-A A IPC. The power of attorney of one Virender Singh is in favour of Harish Kumar son of Shankar Dass. Rajinder Kumar Ahlmad of the court of learned J.M.1.C. Panipat has been examined as RW8 who has brought the file of criminal case titled as State Vs. Ashok Kumar, under sections 279, 337 304-A 337, A IPC. In that case application for releasing the Maruti car on superdari superd was moved by Harish sh Kumar Kumar. Sandeep Singla, Ahlmad of the court of learned Addl. District Judge. Karnal has been examined as RW9. He has brought brought the MACT case file titled as Commandant 4th Battalion Vs. Harish Kumar filed on 1.12.2003. The copies of claim petition, written statement and estimate are Ex. R68 to Ex. R71. It is pertinent to mention here the said claim petition relates to the damage of Jeep no. HR-05K/4532, 05K/4532, in which allegedly deceased Tek Ram was travelling on whose behalf of present claim petition has been filed. Suresh Kumar Clerk, Labour Office, Karnal RW10 has brought the file titled Deepak Vs. Virender Singh which was dismissed dismiss in default on 17.9.2003. Copies of claim petition and order dated 17.9.2003 are Ex. R72 and Ex. R73 respectively. Rajinder Saini. Criminal Ahlmad of the court of J.M.I.C. Sonepat RW11 has brought TRIPTI SAINI the file of criminal criminal case titled State Vs. Raj Kumar under sections 279, FAO- 1519-2006 2006 (O&M) -15- 37, 338 and 304-A 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 brought ought the summoned file of all criminal cases. As per recovery memo 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, Tribunal in which, Harish Kumar was driver of the offending 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 record of the cases was produced by the Ahlmad concerned. The learned Tribunal 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 all th thee cases of hit and run. The Tribunal totally ignored the judicial record placed before it.