moH COURT or CHHATTISGARH AT BHASPUR M.A. No. 567/3004 APPBLLANT Chandrawati Sahu and others Versus RESPONDBNTS National msuraace Co. Ltd. and others Judgmeat post for •^-5-2007 sd/- p^endralVlfohra ludge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR 1W.A Nn 567/2004 ^^rS.SSji, AXAOLaA t^» j-L^ 3. cnaactrawau yanu, w./o. Moharlai, aged about r)r) &A yesrs, t^/>^^n •1-rt/Tf-^/^-r-t .'1-' Lt-F'CI.LJ.OAl House Wfle, K/o. vmage Bisnrampiir S-v^,[ncar rs.caj.tw CL¥ OLct.U.L;lAJ P H 1 <k-?^ yisnrainpur, 'l'atisU yura)piir, Uistt. Surguja (C.G.) 2. Renu, D/o. Mohai'lal, aged about 4 Minor thli^t-t.gll ^vi i ^t y*/~i 4 <i -n gLlcUU-icul mother fAppellaat No. 1) j-^ w cti irk.ci- I'lCLttctU Odllu., O^ ^. Sanu, agea aoout su years, IVlUtilcllll ri. 4. Hiraiaa Uevi, w/o. Uwaritca prasaa OaIlT i>jcu.i.i-t< ci.^OLi Q1^-^71+ a-i^v^Lli- AC; v ^cU. o, Uccupation J-louse wfle. Appellant No. 3 aiid 4 are R/'o. Near IDoiltTT/a^r lYcU.lVVcxy OU3.L1U1J- T3'tc-'1^ T»<~>-my^-! •* LjiSfiil fcU-U^JUJ- ^ P.S. yisnranipur, 'l'ansil yuraipur, Uistt cs^^^/Y?^" (r^ n ^ OU.l^LtJCt ^\^,\J.J R^PONDENTS 1. National Insm'ance Co. Ltd. mrough M"" _ ^-"r^11/<Q r-> •<-<? lltUl.^-CX^pll^CU-ALO '•i i^?N 1; H !liEi5'1' Ui cu.l<--J.A (C.G.j Divisional IViCtllSl.^Ol , XYU1 JL'fci. Insurer Anita Devi, TvV/o. Satish Agravval, aged about 'dU vears, K/o. Main Koad Viiioba UUaspur, Uistt. Bilaspur (C.G.'j Nagar, r^/->^?i-^ \JtO. V Ll 1 Mandir 0^ ly/ii'i-i^.-t T|T> o LU. cy^ LU , ^.B. & 'l'ansil suraipUT, uistt. Sui-guia cr* n i i^.vj.j /^TTTT~t Ctt' \-^Wild 3. Inclraiit, S/o. Itwari Kaai, aged about 35 o. i+'ii ^^<~*/^'i •i-n/'i+'i'^-n T^-»'*4TT^a-»-> l.3 / ^i \ ^CU. -3, ^-^O^ LtpCttXV^ll j^/j. IV »--! , 1'i.y U. viuage door, p.y. & 'l'atisu Suraipur, r^'£-++ Q-..r*--r!^^« tr^ f^ \ -i-/J.OLL* Ut-U.^Lyct ^\-/.^J. urivcr ynri A.K. snzifcia, Adv. tor me appeuants. QT-i-m 0/ti ir''~>T^T^> d~><^-r»rvTi<Tt OlLt-i Ocxl-UctUli OllfcU lllfct. A/'it7/Tk/'/T>"^£l •f/^.-t^ +1~1-^ '»^£»£~l»-l./^y-t/4^=>TTt'^T/^ rlU.VtJ^fci.LC i\ji Lii.C; lCc»pL?llU.Ci.lL i\tj. Mone appears tor oUier responclents. JUD G M ENT TS^t3<*<»T»?^t*<a %ffl<»i»r<*- ^T jLy**dA •i>rf*»itA*.K<i Aai,*»»*A*ek» »^a The appeuants/dependants of Moharlal have prefen'ed this appeal iinder Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 isi:ltlr8: ;i:!s' •::.;.i!^^ agauist tlie awarct aated iym Marcn, 2UU4 passea bv ieamect 3ra Aciamonal Motor Accident Clauns 'lTiOunai, yuraipiir ui Ciauii Case No. 16/2002, wherebv the application for compensation towaras cleaui ot Monarlal nas been reiectea. 'Z. 'rne case ot uie appeliants betore uie 'l'nbunai, ui Dnet, was fhat on 29-1-1998 at about 9.30 p.m. in the night, deceased was going on a bycicle for his duty, at tha.t tmie truck Mo. M.p.2b-U/a^bb flnven rasniv aaa negligently tiv responctent No. 3 dasnect nim, as a result ol wmcn lie diecl on spot. 'rne deceased was worKuig as Wu-eless Uperator in youtti Uastem Coallields Ltd., BishrampUT and he died m accident UT. Bishram.pur near State Bank on public road. It is stated that his salarv was Rs. 6000/- per month and his age was 26 vears. In au, a sum. ot Ks. au,uu,uuu/- was ciamied uncler various neads. 3. The respondent No. 1 denied fhe averments in fhe clauii petition. He aenied uie montmy uicome 01 Ks. buuu/- ot me cleceasecl. Kesponclent No. 1 lias stated ui its aaclitional statenient mat no mtoniiauon was given DV tne owner ot Uie vetucle/responclent no. 2 to Uie insurance conipanv ancl ttie d.n.ver/respondent iMo. 3 was not havlng valid and ettective dnvuig ucence at tfae tmie ot accident. 'l'ne responaent no. 'z nas denied the avenTients in fhe petition. He has stated fhat the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Conipanv and the driver was navmg valid and. ettective clnving licence at me reievant time ancl in case ttie appeUants are nelcl entitlea tor any compqnsation, it sfaau De uie uatiility ot the insurance Companv. 'l'Ue responctent JMo. 3 nas aclm.ittecl t&e acciclent and nas statecl mat tne aeceasea was mniselt responsibie tor uie acciaent. Me nas also statecl mat tlie insurance company is liaDle lor payment ot compensation to uie ciaunants. 4. Un tlie basis ot me pleacling of Uie respectjve parties, various issues were tram.ed by the Tribunal and the claiai petmon was rerccted tiv recordmg a nncting Uiat irom uie V ..lllil ,.il; evidence available on record it is not established that responclent no. 3 clasned me aeceasect Monarlai by trucK NO. M.P. '^6-D/32bt5. It was turtlier neld mat trom tne perusai ot the docuiuents als», it is clear that deceased Moharlal died on accoujat ot ctasn &y unfcnown vetucie, ancl Uie claimants are not entltled tbr anv compensation. 5. Leamed counsel lor the appeuants subraits fhat the above tlnding of fhe Tribixial is contrary to the eviclence available on recora. 'l'ne statements ot A.W. 1 cnanctrawati yanu, A.w. '2. Uwanka Satiu and A.W. 3 viiav Mistira nave been disbeuevea by Uie 'l'nDunat on extraneous consicierauon. 'l'&e inlormation ot me accident was given bv A.w. 2 uwariisa sanu in me pouce station and report ofEx. P-2, F.I.R. Ex. P-3, uwestigation report Ex. P-4, post morteni report ol'Ex. P-6, seizure memo ofEx. P-7 ana Uie applications suDmittecl to yupenntenclent ot fotice Kx. P-8 and P-9 have been produced by the cteunants. The police without making anv proper investigation has tued the case without notice to the complatnant, fheretore, tUtng ot the case on such investigation could not be niade basis for reaching to me conclusion Uiat no acciclent involvuig tne trucK in quesuon occurred resulting in deaui ot Moliar Lal and m. tnese circumstances, tne claun petition ot the claimants snoulct not be reiected. b. On the otner hana, y&n Saurabli ynamia, Actvocate appearing for the Insurance Company has supported fhe impugyied. juagment and. stated tliat trom. tne papers produced in ttie eviclence by ttie claunants themselves, Uie version aDout the accident given by the clatDiants is beBed. 'The claimants in collusion witn responclents no. j2 and 3 nave tued a petinon alter ainiost 'z Ya years ot Uie acciclent. t<'.l.K. was loctged on '2y- i-iyyy but tne poiice tuea uie case on 4-K-iyyy as no person witnessect me accident and ctnver and owner ot me otlenaing vehicle are not known. The coUusion between the claimants and -—- «sssag3s^^—~' ? a ? ? i AaMSii 'W :!tS6 i' tfie dnver and owner ot Uie vetucle is wnt large as uie owner ancl ariver ot tne vemcle m. uien' wntten statement wrucn was tUecl alter aDout more man 3 'A years adm.ittecl tfae acciclent tor tne tu'st tune. Hoyever, thev have not enterecl into the witness box and ttiey aid not mtonn tne insurance Companv about anv accident uivolving their ~vehicle unniediatelv after fhe accident. Kellance 1s placect on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. -v- reported. in 2UUb ACJ 13,3^ wliereni tne KarnataKa i-tign. Court nas lield t&at me clainiants proclucea t<'.l.K. aacl ouier aocuments relating to crim.in.al case wfticli disclosea tliat uie cleceased were traveluig as passengers in a goocls vemcle. 'rrie docum.ents proclucect bv me clauTiants themselves bind theni and tlie claiiTiants caruiot take a stand Uiat e contents ot ttie clocuments mea bv uieni ctict not reveat true state ot atlairs. /. l nave nearct tlie learnecl counsel tor Uie paities. 1 nave perusea tlie uiipugnea awarcl as aiso Uie documentary and. oral evidence available on record. y. 'rne version given by A.W. 1 Chafidrawau Sanu, wfle ot Uie deceased is that on 29-1-1998 at about 10.00 p.m. in the night, one person came to her house and. inlormecl that a person nas cliect ui acciaent. un trus, tier tattier-in-law UwariKa Prasaa Saliu went to tne place ot accident ancl saw tliat ner nusDancl nas ciieci, report ol wmcn was loagea by nun in me police station. yne was inlormed about me vemcie ana its dnver by A.W. ,3 Vifav Mishra. A.W. 2 Dwarika Prasad, father of the aeceasecl, ni rus evidence lias stated tnat at 10.00 p.m. in the rugtit on ^y-l-iyyy ne was mtormecl uiat ms son nas niet wim an acciaent wim a trucK, on wrucn ne went to me place ot acciaent ana saw tnat ms son lias aiea. 'l'ne nuniber ot trucK M.F'.C 2b-u a'.i'bb was intorniea by Viiay Mistira wlio tolcl him ttiat ne naa seen tlie acciclent. Aiter me accictent ne becam.e unconscious tor two davs. 'l'tierealter, tliev loagea report to .irilS poUce station Bishrampur and thereatter went to nieet Vilay Mishra. Atter meeting Viiav Mishra, he agatn lodged report. On perusai of Ex. P-8, which is a written complaint lodged by A.W. 1 Chandravati to Supermtendent of Police, it 1s otiservect that date ot me compiamt is not mentioned. However tne complaint of Ex. P-9 was received 23-6-2002 Le. after atiout 2 Ya vears. A.w. 3 viiay Mishi-a, wtio is said to be eve-witoess ot me acciaent, &as statea UT.at ne saw ttie acciaent irom ^a raeters distance and he noted the truck number and saw that fhe truck was being driven by Indraieet. In para 7 of cross-exammation he has statect that ne dicl not lodge report ot th.e inciaent tUl next day 01 the accident He tias turther stated wnen ne uitormect about the accident to Dwarika UT. the night, he did not tell him about the truck nuinber and nam.e of the driver. He has stated tliat he Knew indraieet since last one years. Me tias atso statect tfaat aiter aDout 2 monm trom t&e accictent, pollce caued tmii and inqrured about fhe accident and before that, he htmself did not make anv statement to toe police about the acciclent. y. f'rom ttie evictence avauaoie on record, except tne statement on oafh of aileged eye-witness Vijay Mishra and statements ot A.W. 1 and A.W. 2 that. tne truck m ques&on was invoivea m acciclent, tnere is no omer documentan' evidence available on record regarding involvement of fhe vehicle. Even A.W. 3 Vilav lAishra has adniitted that in the night ot' accident wheri he informed about the accident to A.W. 2 Dwarika Prasad, / he dict not tell anvttung about the number ot the truck and nanie of the driver. It is difilcult to believe that when Viiav Misnra, wno nmiselt nas stateci tttat ne knew indraieet since last one year, would not nave iruorm.ecl A.W. ^ Uwaruca at)out ttie name ot the driver, and. even he has not intonjied to the police till poiice called him after two monfhs ofthe accident. So far as the admission of the driver of the offendin$ vetocle regarauig involvenient ot ms vehicle ui tne accictent in question is concemecl, tie nas not enterecl uito witness t>ox to prove averments in his wrltten statements. Theretbre, tnis Court is of the considered opinion fhat fhe 'TTibunal has not committed any illegality or irregulanty in reacttmg to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to prove the involvement ol me trucjk belonging to responclent No. '2 anct driven by respondent No. 3 in the accident resulttng in death of Monar Lal. 'l'here is apparent collusion between ttie clamiants, owner ancl ctnver. 10. The appeal is devoid of substance and is accordmgly ctismissed. Sd/- DSiirendra Mishra Judge