IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 297 of 2005 United India Insurance Company Limited .. Appellant. Versus Smt. Shashi Kala and 4 others .. Respondents. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents. Dated: 31-7-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by United India Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 15-3-2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Haridwar, in MACT Case No. 50/2004. 2- Brief facts of the case are that deceased on 23-12-2003 Vinod Kumar was going Tibadi from Bilkeshwar riding in his scooter No. UA 08-9532. At about 7.30 P.M. near Roadways Workshop three-wheeler bearing registration No. U.A. 08-A- 5203 came there at a high speed and dashed the Scooterist and fled away from the spot. The injured was admitted in H.M.G. Hospital Haridwar, and from there he was referred to Delhi. Where he succumbed to the injuries after receiving treatment for about seven days. The deceased at the time of accident was 43 years of age and his monthly income was Rs. 6,732/-. Therefore, the claimants preferred claim petition for a sum of Rs. 31,50,000/- as compensation. 2 3- The opposite party No.1, owner of offending three-wheeler has filed his written statement and alleged that the accident has occurred due to own fault of the Scooterist. The driver of three-wheeler was driving his vehicle in his side at a moderate speed. His vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company and if any liability is there, the same is upon the insurance company. 4- The opposite party No.2, United India Insurance Company also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement and alleged that the accident has occurred due to own negligence of the Scooterist and scooter driver had no valid driving license. Hence the petition is not maintainable. 5- The Opposite Party No.3, also contested the claim petition and alleged that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the Scooterist. The three-wheeler was being driven cautiously at its side. The three-wheeler was having valid documents. 6- The learned Tribunal, on the pleadings of parties, framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter parties adduced evidence in support of their case. The learned Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,11,640/- as compensation against the United India Insurance Company and directed if the compensation is not paid within a period of one month, the interest @ 7% per annum shall be payable from the date of filing petition till the date of actual payment. 3 7- Feeling aggrieved the United India Insurance Company has preferred this appeal before this Court. 8- Heard learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and learned counsel for the respondent/claimants and perused the record. 9- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the alleged accident was a hit and run case and the accident was not caused by three-wheeler. The learned Tribunal did not consider the evidence on record properly. He also submitted that the F.I.R. of the accident was lodged after about 6 months. The death of the deceased was not caused due to the injuries sustained by him. Therefore, the insurance company could not have been held liable to pay compensation. 10- From perusal of record it reveals that eyewitness of the accident P.W.2, Charan Singh has been produced in the case. This witness has deposed that on 23.12.2003 at about 7.30 – 8.00 P.M. he along with his friend Umesh was standing near Roadways Workshop, suddenly three-wheeler No. UA 08-A/5203 came there at a high speed from Bilkeshwar side and dashed the scooter. The scooter driver sustained previous injuries. P.W.1, Smt. Sashikala, claimant has deposed that she was informed about the accident by Umesh and Charan Singh. She further alleged that her husband had sustained injuries on his left leg, head and internal injuries. C.T. scan was done in the next morning and thereafter he was referred to Delhi. On 25-12-2003 her husband was admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital Delhi. In the next day he was operated and on 31-12-2003 he was declared dead by the doctors. The petitioner Smt. Sashikala has filed application U/S 156(3) Cr.P.C. before 4 the C.J.M., Haridwar about the accident and on her application case crime No. 341/2004 was registered and the police after investigation has submitted charge sheet against the driver of three-wheeler Sandeep Kumar. This fact also makes it clear that the police after investigation has found guilty the driver of the three-wheeler guilty in causing the accident. Therefore, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant have no force that the F.I.R. has been lodged with great delay and wrong claim has been filed. 11- Injury report paper No. 29-C, issued by the Doctor of H.M.G. Hospital, Haridwar has been filed which shows that the deceased had received injuries on his forehead, face and out part of left leg. X-ray of skull was advised. Other documents pertaining to C.T. scan, purchase of medicines etc. The claimant also deposed in her statement on oath that after receiving injuries her husband was taken to HMG Hospital Haridwar though Police Mobile Vehicle and on 24-12-2003 he was referred to Delhi where he remained admitted for 7 days and has died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. In the aforesaid circumstances of the case, the submission of counsel for the appellant that the deceased did not die due to the injuries sustained in the accident, is not acceptable. 12- The learned Tribunal also considered the point of contributory negligence. Site plan of the place of occurrence prepared by the police during investigation of the criminal case has been filed on record and in the said site plan the scooter driver has been shown on his side whereas the driver of three-wheeler has been shown on wrong side at the spot. Therefore, in view of the eyewitness account of the accident and the other 5 documents produced before the Tribunal, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding the sole negligence on the part of the three-wheeler driver. I do not find any infirmity in the finding arrived at by the Tribunal. 13- The offending three-wheeler at the time of accident was insured with United India Insurance Company and the photo copy of the driving license has been filed which is paper No. 40-C. Therefore, the insurance company has rightly been held liable to pay the compensation. 14- No other point has been raised before me. 15- For the reasons given above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 15-3-2005 is hereby confirmed. 17- The statutory amount of compensation deposited at the time of admission of the appeal, be remitted to the tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB