1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2172/2007 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Chanchali & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2173/2007 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Leela & Ors. 1. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2172/2007 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Chanchali & Ors. 2. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2173/2007 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Leela & Ors. Date : 22.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Anil Bachhawat, for the appellant. Mr.Rajesh Panwar ) for the respondents. Mr.BS Rathore ) - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Both these appeals arise out of the same accident and claim cases which have been decided by common award, therefore, both these appeals are decided by this common judgment. These appeals have been preferred to challenge 2 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2172/2007 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Chanchali & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2173/2007 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Leela & Ors. the award dated 6.6.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in claim cases no.124/2006 and 126/2006 respectively. The contention of the appellant insurance company is that the Tribunal committed error of fact by holding that Mangu Singh was the driver of the vehicle Truck No.RJ 22 G 1919 and in fact, the driver was Madan Singh. It is submitted that the name of Mangu Singh has been implanted by none else but Madan Singh to save himself as Madan Singh had no valid driving license to drive the vehicle by which accident was caused. It is submitted that the police after investigation found that though initially Mangu Singh was shown as driver of the truck but in fact, Madan Singh was Khallasi and he was driving the vehicle on 19.9.2006 resulting into death of two persons – Kapura Ram and Champa Lal. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal has considered the evidence in detail while deciding the issue no.1 3 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2172/2007 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Chanchali & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2173/2007 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Leela & Ors. and thereafter held that virtually there is no evidence that Madan Singh was driver of the offending vehicle. It is also submitted that the eye witness who was traveling in the bus which was hit by truck driver Mangu Singh clearly stated that he got the knowledge of the name of driver of the vehicle on the spot and he, therefore, lodged the FIR against the driver Mangu Singh. It is submitted that the investigating officer even has not been produced by the respondents to show that during investigation, the investigating agency rightly found that Madan Singh was driving the vehicle and not Mangu Singh. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record also. There is direct evidence of AW3 Mahesh Yati who gave the complete facts how the accident occurred and he lodged FIR with no delay. There appears to be no reason to disbelieve the statement of said witness. In addition to above, 4 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2172/2007 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Chanchali & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2173/2007 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Leela & Ors. the owner of the vehicle was served with notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act and in reply to which, it is stated that Mangu Singh was the driver of the vehicle and Madan Singh was not appointed by him either as driver or khallasi. He gave vehicle to Mangu Singh who had valid driving license with him. He also gave his statement before the Tribunal as NAW1 Roop Singh. It will be further relevant to mention here that NAW2 PC Purohit, Administrative Officer of the appellant insurance company in his cross examination admitted that the owner of the truck informed them that Mangu Singh was driver of the vehicle. Even in the details recorded by the police in Ex.3 about the accident how it occurred, there is mention that Mangu Singh was driver. There is no force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that Madan Singh was taken out from the vehicle by crane as per the police challan report, therefore, he was driver of the vehicle. Merely on the basis of said event, it cannot be said that he was driving the vehicle and 5 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2172/2007 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Chanchali & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2173/2007 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Leela & Ors. mere presence of Madan Singh, if he was there, is itself not sufficient to prove that he was driving the vehicle. In view of the above reason, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue no.1 is based on evidence and is supported by the evidence which is perused by this Court also. I do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error of fact or law in passing the impugned judgment. Consequently, both these appeals, having no merits, are hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya