HIGH COuRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 562/3004 AmsLLAJ'iTS Kam.cfiandra yuign ana ouiers TS 'rne Unental insurance Co. Ltct. and >t}~i'=lr'<2 \^ l*J.^.V/. Juctgiaeut post tor q--5-2007 Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge HIGH COuRT OF CHHAT'TISGARH AT BILASPUR Clainisjats 1W-A- Wn_ Sfi2/2nn4. Kamcnandra ymgn, f^^ Non-appticants tt^JLJL^^J 2. S/o. C?/-i-rim-K-'j-jTTir/Tr-i CtTl^i/Tf1~> /-> i-r.ca/;) <-<T^/^-ii+ ^*. c^ »^ca-tVi.-LCU.a.vcU.i t^jLfcigli.; d.^t.u. ci-U</LiL \J'i^ vears, Uccupanon faouse noictuig. iIlG.TSVS.U.f W/G, i\aJC-UCLT3. 5iUgD-, S-gCd about -30 years, Occupation House "rife vv ll^. a. vinav Kumar ymgn, s/o. Kaiendra O^+~|/TU <~>/v^a/'l /i 1^1/^-11^- ^ Xrd<"'T'<'1 •m-?T~>/^'*^ ou.lgj.i.y ci.g</vA <3.u^t-ii- v-/ y'c.a-i.Oy uj.juLiUA tm'ougn guardian momer (Appeilant No. 2) 4. bmesnwar suigti, K/o. Kaienara, aged about 5 years, minor through guardian mother (Appellant No. 2) Vidhyavati, D/o. Rai, RojcndTS. Singh, aged about 4 vears, minor through guardian mofher (Appellant No. 2) AU are K/o. viuage unarsedi, J-'.S. TRT->/3".'-Q+'i-*o->-> rT"Ue?i1 Q-iir'olTr*-*-*-'- T^ie.-t-+ tjii.cLiycLULic^j.i.y i dlioii ouicxj piu , i^l^Lt. Surguja (C.G.) lanager, Co. Ltd. R'T.Qrir'}"! The Oriental Insuraace fhrough Branch Office, Sadar Road, near S.B.L, Ambikapur, Distt SurgVya (C.G.} msyrer Anita Devi, V//o. Satish Agrawal, aged aDout au years, K/o. Main Koad Vinoba Nagar, /^lQT.rt-r^ <-Tcty U. 1 1S-4'<sr-*/'14r> IvlfcUlU.U. uilaspiir, uistt. Buaspur jc.u.) jprcsei'ii-iy R/o. A.f/a^r-* ivictu.l Road C^i Tr*/-^ T-rti Tt^ OLucy^ui, P.y. & 'l'atisil yiiraipur, Uistt. SurRUia fri r^ \ r\v7^^r- ^v^-.\^t*j \.-/y\ 3. Indrajit, S/o. Itwari Ram, aged about vp yccLTs^ ^ccups.uoii j-/nvCi'^ t\y o. village Joor, P.S. & T'aIisU Suraipur, Distt. SurgLija (C.G-.) T^iTaiT-o-n j-'ij.voi snn A.K. ynufcta, Adv. tor tne appeliants. Shn. Abhisek Staha,Adyocs.L€ IOF uis FcspouQenT. i'lo. i iMone appears tor other respondents. JUDGMENT ^^ifssiiys, SSisSi2f3.» ^Ji The appellants/dependants of deceased Raiendra Singh have- orefen'ed this appeal under Section 173 ol toe Motor •J Vehicles Act, 1988 against tlie awai-d dated 19th March, 2004 passed bv ieamed 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur in Clatm Case No. 19/2002, wherebv the applicalion tor comDensation towards deatn ot Kaienctra Smgn nas Deen reiectea. 'i. 'rne case ot ttie appellants betore e 'l'nbzinal, in bnet, was fhat on 27-1-1999 at about 12.00 noon, deceased was going towards Orgi Bazar by his Spai'k moped. At that time, near vuiage Ua^aiHanala near village BaiinaUipiu-, tn-icK rslo. M.P.26-D/3266 owned bv respondent No. 2 and driven rashlv and negiigentty bv responclent INO. 3 clasnect l-um, as a result ot which he died on spot. In all, a sum of Rs. 25,00,OOO/- was ciaiinecl uncter vanous neads. a. Kesponaent no. l demea Uie averments m tne ciaun petitlon and stated that no accident involving truck No. M.P. 26- D/3266 occuiTed on 27-1-1999 and no report to fhis effect was lodged in the concemed police station Bhaiyathan. It was turtner stated tnat tlie cneque given by Uie uisi-ired towarcls Uie insurance policy had bounced, and therefore, the vehicle was not insnred. 'l'ne aeceased diecl clue to tau trom mopecl as a result oi heart attack. Tfae claun is hettv and exass.erated. Ttie claim petition has been filed by the applicants m coUusion fraudmentlv. However, fhe respondents No. 2 and 3 have admitted fhe accident and have taken a defence that the vehicle was Deuig driven Dy tne dnver navuig vaua anct eaecnve dnving Iicence .ai^a tne venicie was msiirect tor me relevant penocl and in case the appeliants ar^ held entiued for any compensation, it shaU be Tlie Uability of the Insiirance Company. 4. On the basis of the pleading of the respective parties, various issue.s were framed by fhe Tribunal and the clami petition was reiected bv I'ecording a tinding that troni t&e eviaence available on recorct it is not estaoiisnea that deceasect Kaiendra Singh died on 27-1-1999 as a result of accident ••^^M^ causea DV tnicK no. M.J-'. '2b U/32bfc> bemg dnven rasniv ancl negligenuv by responaent No. 'z &ut me accident occun'ed because ttie deceased wnue clnving ypm'K moped rashly could not control Uie sanie in tne slope near Bagaitianala as a result of which he feu below the culvert and his head was mingled in tlie inucl. 5. Leamed counsel for the appellants submits that the above tinaing ot tiie 'l'nbunal is contrar^' to Uie evicience avaitable on record and fhe sacne is based on fhe papers concernm.g criine No. 14/ 1999 registered hi police st.ation JIiilm.iii. The stateiuent of witnesses A.W. 2 Shambhunath Choubey and A.W. 3 inclraaev wfio nacl wimessecl tlie acciaent, nave been disbelievea on extraneous conslderation. T'he F'u-st Intbrmation Report was loclgea &y appeUant l\o. l Kamcnandra yingn wno was not an eye-witness ana, merelore, Uie claim snoulct not De reiectea omv on the ground fhat no offence was registered agEunst the driver of the offending vehicle. The police without making any proper uwestigauon nas liled. tne case wimout notice to Uie complauiant, ttieretore, tituig ot me case on sucn uwestigation could not be niade basis for reaching to the conclusion fhat no accident uivolvmg ttie U'-UCK; ui question occun'ea resulting in cleatn ot Kaienara yingn. b. un me otner nanci, ynri Abl-useK yuiiia., Advocate appeanng tor Uie insurance Companv nas supportect me impugnea )udgment ana statecl ttiat trom tne papers proctucecl in tne ,evidence by me claimaats tnemseives, me version about tne accident gwen Ov ttie claimaats is beuect. 'l'fte claimants m collusion witn responaents no. 2 ancl a nave tuecl a peunon after almost 2 '/a years of the accident. Raiendra Suigh died on 27-1-1999, however, the written report of fhe accident was lodged on 8-6-2000 in Police Station Jhikiiili. 'The couusion between the claim.ants and the driver and owner of the venicle is wnt large as tne owner ot' uie venicie in their n7ritten statement /' . 6',.lfr wnicn was med atter more than 3 vears aamitted me accident for the tirst tinie. However, they have not entered into flie witness box and mev did not iniorm the Insurance Companv about anv accident involvuig their vehicle unmediatelv after fhe accident. Reliaiice is placed on Unlted Indla Insurance Co. Ltd. -v- Hussaia Sab and others reported in 2006 AC-J 1352 wherem the Kamataka High Court has held that the claimants procluced. r'.l.K. and otner documents relatmg to cruninal case which disclosed that the deceased were traveling as passengers in a goods vehicle. T'he documents produced bv the claiiaants themselves bind theni aiid the claunants cannot take a stand that the contents of the docuinents liled bv fheni did not reveal true state of affan's. /. 1 nave neard me learnect counsel tor uie paties. l nave perused me impugn.ecl award as also the ctocumentary and oral evidence avauable on record. 'l'ne version given bv Kanicnanara yingn IA.W. ij tauier ot the deceased, the complainant who gave Merg m.tmiation Ex. P- 6 as also the F'.i.R. of Ex. P-8 has stated that he reached to the spot after receiving ffae information aad saw his son dead. However he was not aware as to how he died. His son could not control the vehicle as a result of which he feU down. 'T'he police clict not maKe proper inqmiy and tLled me case by sayuig ttiat ne fell down from the moped. He learnt about the mvolvement of the truck dnven bv respondent No. 3, and ownect bv respondent No. 2, by A.W. '2»'Shambhunatii Choube aiid Indradev ('A.W. 3} whereupon he lodged the report-on 12-2-1999 at Police Station Jhumili. A.W. 2 Shambhunath Choubev and A.W. 3 Indradev claiming themselves to be eve-vvitnesses have stated fhat fhe deceased was going bv his moped at about 12.00 noon, at that tune, ne was rut by me trucK m question. 'l'ney caUect Uie dnver t6 Stop,.tKe vehicle who stopped the vehicie for some tiiiie, and tnereafter raced away. Rajendra Singh died on spot. Crowd had gafnered however, since they had to go to market fhey asked others to inform to the house of fhe deceased and proceeded to niarket. 'meretore, Jtie conld not aisclose Uus tact to Ramchandra mimediatelv. In cross-exammation also, it is aciuiittecl tliat tnev did not disclose ttus tact even to uieir tamilv members ana to anv ou-ier person. U orat statement ot mese witnesses is scrutuuzed, merg intenation ot Kx. P-b ancl V.l.K. ot Ex. P-8, it is very dtfficult to accept the version given bv tliese witnesses regarding involvement of tfae truck in question ia fhe said accident, particularly when the involvement ot the truck was brought to the notice of the police for fhe first tune after more fhan six months of the accident. It is perttnent to mention here tl'iat leam.ed 'l'nbunal wftile commg to conclusion Uiat me clalmants and owner and clnver ot Uie vemcle nave coUiclecl as observecl in para 14 ot tfae mipugnecl awarcl tnat in CJ.aun case No. 16/2002 (Chandravati Sahu -v- National Insiirance Companv ana otftersj, Uie clamiants ot mat case nave also tilecl claun peution savuig Uie respondent no. 2 ancl 3 as owner anci clnver ol tlie venicie wim amiost laentical lacts and ui bot& tnese claun cases, no ctociimentan' eviclence establismng uie iiivolvem.ent of fhe vehicle in bofh the accidents was available and me petitions nave been tUect trauctulenuv ui collusion to maKe illegal gam trom respondent-lnsurance Uoinpany. y. i^'rom tfae eviclence avauable on recora, except me statement on oatn ol hvo aueged eve-witnesses and uie stateinent pt' appeUant No. 1 ttiat the truck in question was involvect ui acciclent, ttiere is no omer documentary eviclence availaDie on record regarctm.g uivolvement ot Uie vemcle. so tar as the admission of the driver and owner of the olfenduig vehicle regarding uivolvement ot tfaeir vemcle ui uie accident m. question, is concenied, th.ey have not entered. into wltness box LO "prove averinents ui tb.en' wntten stateinents. As alreadv mentioned above, fhe statenient of appellant No. 1 Ramchandra B 'i:3S!!3", •Y stands contradictecl n'om tos own report ot Kx. J-'-b ana, tiieretore, ttus court is also ot uie consiaerea opmion mat e 'i'nbunal nas not committed anv Ulegaii^ or in'egiuarit^' m reacmng to me conclusion Uiat Uie appeuants iiave tailecl to prove me invoivement ot me trucK; beionging to responclent Mo. i ancl anven E>v responclent No. a in Uie acciaent resumng in deatn ot Kaiendra- yuign. 'l'nere is apparent couusion Detween the claimants, owner and driver. iu. 'l'ne appeai is aevoicl 01 substance and is accorciinglv disniissea. — __ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Jydge " "-T •--^~?aw6^^^~^7;^=^^^^'--: ".'^^.~-'"..—-"."~.-SL