Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.589 of 2011 ====================================================== Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd , Swastik Building Murarpur, P.S. Kotwali, Gaya, represented through its Manager, Regional Office, Chanakya Towers (3rd Floor), Birchand Patel Marg, „R‟ Block Patna -800001. .... .... (O.P. No. 3) ……….. Appellant/s Versus 1. Jugal Chaudhary, son of Late Ram Chandra Chaudhary 2. Geeta Devi, Wife of Jugal Chaudhary Both resident of village Lodipur Tola, Neuri P.S. Belaganj, District Gaya (Claimants) ………………………….. Respondents (Respondents first set). 3. Shri Sujeet Sharma, son of Chandrika Singh. Resident of village Jagdishpur, P.S. – Mofassil, District – Gaya ………….. (Opposite party no. 1)……… (Driver of Bus BR-2P- 6551). 4. Sri Ravi Shankar Singh, son of Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Mohalla New Area (Bisar Talab) P.S. Civil Lines, District - Gaya. …….. (Opposite Party No. 2) (Owner of Bus BR-2P-6551) ……….. (Respondent 2nd set ) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 21-09-2012 Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar No. 1, learned counsel for the appellant. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the M.V. Act”) has been preferred against judgment dated 31.3.2011 and award dated 7.4.2011 passed in Claim Case No. 46 of 2010/ 18 of 1998, by learned Additional District Judge / F.T.C. V– cum – Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Gaya (hereinafter referred to Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2011 (3) dt.21-09-2012 2 / 4 2 as “the Tribunal”). The learned Tribunal while allowing the claim petition has directed the appellant, who was insurer of the offending vehicle, to make payment of compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 1,54,000/- subject to deduction of Rs. 50,000/- already paid as ad-interim compensation under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. Short fact of the case is that twelve year old daughter of claimants / respondent no. 1 & 2 died in a vehicular accident on 17.1.1998 on Gaya – Jehanabad Road. Daughter of the claimants was dashed by a bus namely “Maharani Bus” having registration no. BR-2P-6551. In the said accident she died on the spot. After the accident an F.I.R. vide Belaganj P.S. Case No. 5 of 1998 under [STATUTE] was registered and post – mortem examination was conducted. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed claiming compensation on the ground that death has occurred in the accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus. Before the Tribunal the claimants in support of claim produced three witnesses and required documents were brought on record. Before the Tribunal the appellant appeared and filed written statement. The driver of the offending vehicle had also brought on record his driving licence. Before the Tribunal a stand was Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2011 (3) dt.21-09-2012 3 / 4 3 taken by the appellant that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence instead fake driving licence was brought on record, which was evident on the basis of verification report of D.T.O., Ranchi. However, learned Tribunal after hearing the parties has allowed the claim petition and directed the appellant for paying compensation amount since offending vehicle at the time of accident was under insurance cover of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant before this court has raised only one ground for quashing of the order. He submits that since the owner of the vehicle had violated the terms and conditions due to the reason that driver of the offending vehicle was having fake driving licence, in no event, insurer was to be directed to pay compensation amount but it was the owner of the vehicle. After going through the material on record it is evident that except bringing on record a verification report to show that driving licence which was brought on record was purported to be fake, no material was brought on record to show that the owner of the vehicle was knowing the fact regarding fake licence. In such a situation it was necessary for the insurance company to establish that owner of the vehicle knowingly had Patna High Court MA No.589 of 2011 (3) dt.21-09-2012 4 / 4 4 allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person who was not having valid driving licence. It is not a case that driver had not produced driving licence. In absence of such material it would be difficult for this court to hold that owner of the vehicle had violated the terms and conditions warranting direction for payment of compensation by him. There is no dispute that vehicle in question was insured at the time of accident and was under insurance cover of the appellant. The learned Tribunal while directing the insurer to make payment of compensation amount has also granted liberty to the appellant for taking step for realizing the same through the process of court. In that view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the court is of the opinion that learned Tribunal has committed no error. I do not find any ground for interference with the impugned order. The Appeal stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of this petition statutory amount which was deposited at the time of filing of the Appeal is directed to be remitted back to the court below for its payment to the claimants. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 304A

Statute Text:
Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Causing death by rash or negligent act. Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.