Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.640 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Sulochana Devi , widow of Late Kishuni Sah 2. Bablu Kumar, minor son of Late Kishuni Sah 3. Jhagru Kumar, minor son of Late Kishuni Sah 4. Julie Kumari, minor daughter of Late Kishuni Sah 5. Guddi Kumari, minor daughter of Late Kishuni Sah 6. Nitu Kumari, minor daughter of Late Kishuni sah 7. Sonu Kumar, minor son of Late Kishuni Sah Serial no.2 to 7 are minor sons and daughters of Late Kishuni Sah under the guardianship of Sulochana Devi , the mother a natural guardian and next friend All are residents of Village-Saidpur Turha Toli, P.S. Chakmeshi, District- Samastipur (Serial no. 1 to 7 are claimants no.1 to 7 respectively) .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Ranjeet Kumar Yadav , son of Sri Ramchandra Rai, resident of Village- Bhagwanpur Karanpur, South Bochaha, P.S. Bochaha, District-Muzaffarpur( Owner of Bus No.BR-06P/0568) ( Opp.Party no.1) 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Divisional Manager, Motijheel, P.S. Town, District-Muzaffarpur ( Policy No.332100 2005 5125) ( Opp.Party no.2) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mukesh Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER -------------------- 11 04-10-2012 Heard Sri Mukesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Respondent no.2/ Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “M.V.Act”) has been preferred against the Judgment dated 29.07.2008 passed by Patna High Court MA No.640 of 2008 (11) dt.04-10-2012 2 / 6 2 the learned 5th Additional District Judge-cum-5th Addl. Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the “Claim Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.267 of 2005, whereby the learned Claim Tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed by the claimants/ Appellants. Short fact of the case is that on 24.08.2005, while the husband of appellant no.1 was moving on bicycle, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of a bus in the name and style of “Priya Ratnesh” bearing Registration No.BR-06P/0568, the bus dashed the deceased and turned turtle and he was smashed beneath the bus, as a result of which the husband of appellant no.1 died at the place of occurrence itself. Thereafter, a F.I.R. vide Pear (Muzaffarpur) P.S. Case No.75 of 2005 was registered on 24.08.2005 for the offence under [STATUTE] against the driver of the offending bus. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted on 14.09.2005 against the driver, namely, Jai Prakash Choudhary. The offending vehicle at the time of accident was under the insurance cover of Respondent no.2/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs.4, 68,000/- before the Claim Tribunal. In support of claim case, number of documents were brought on record and also six persons were Patna High Court MA No.640 of 2008 (11) dt.04-10-2012 3 / 6 3 examined as witnesses. The Respondent no.2/the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., though appeared, did not produce any witness to dispute the case of the claimants. However, the learned Claims Tribunal on examination of materials on record was of the opinion that the accident had occurred due to fault of the deceased himself and only on this very ground, the learned Claim Tribunal has rejected the claim petition, which has been assailed in the present appeal. Sri Mukesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the husband of the deceased died in the vehicular accident leaving behind appellant no.1 (widow) and six minor children. He submits that it was a clear-cut case of the claimants that in the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent. This fact has been corroborated during investigation by the police and, as such, the police had submitted chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. The chargesheet dated 14.09.2005 has been got exhibited as Ext.2. He submits that once during investigation, it was established that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent and he was chargesheeted, the learned Claim Tribunal was not required to dismiss the claim petition on minor contradiction in the deposition of the witnesses, whereas the witnesses in clear term had stated Patna High Court MA No.640 of 2008 (11) dt.04-10-2012 4 / 6 4 that in the said accident, the husband of appellant no.1 had died. It was admitted that the offending vehicle at the time of accident was under insurance cover of Respondent no.2. Keeping in view the fact that evidences were already on record to suggest that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent and due to his fault, accident had occurred and the husband of appellant no.1 died, there was no reason for the learned Claim Tribunal to come to a conclusion that it was fault on the part of the deceased himself. The fact of negligent driving is corroborated from Ext.2 i.e. Chargesheet submitted by the police besides other evidences, which have been brought on record by the claimants. Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.2/ Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellants. However, he does not dispute the fact that in the police investigation, the driver of the offending vehicle was found rash and negligent and was chargesheeted. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the deceased was a vegetable vendor and he was earning Rs.4500/- per month and, as such, compensation was required to be calculated on the basis of income of the deceased i.e. Rs.4500/- Patna High C

Applicable IPC Section: 304

Statute Text:
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, If act by which the death is caused is done with intention of causing death, etc. Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.