^\ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) N0.- ^^(d ^ APPELLANT 1-HE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH BILASPUR (C.G.) Vrs. ^-"•' RESP OND ENT S/C LA IMA NTS ^ ^ ....••••:'::..^^" ^•••:"^^".^^ :y^.--'^t ''".^.>-<" :-1. KUMARI PRIYANKA SINGH D/0 LATE AMARDEV SINGH, AGE 6 YRS., CASTE -GOND, OCCUPATION- STUDENT, THROUGH MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SMT. KUSUM DEVI WIDOW OF LATE AMARDEV SINGH, AGE 25 YRS., CASTE - GONO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DHONUHA, POLICE STAT10N RAMKOLA, DISTRICT- SARGUJA C.G. ^-"" RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS t^. <> SMT. RANJANA JA1N VV/0 SHRI V.K. JA1N, OWNER OF ACCIDENTAL VEHICLE, TRUCK N0.- C.G. 10 Z.B./ 0862, RESIDENT OF S.B.I. COLONY, KRANTINAGAR, CITY- HILASPUR, DISTRTCT- BII.ASPUR C.C. 3. DURGA TIWARI .S/0 JOGENDRA S IIVVARI, ACK 45 VRS., CAS'I'E- BRAI1AMAN, DKIVILK OF ACCTDKNTAI. VEMICI.E, TRUCK N0.- C.G.10Z.B./0862, RES1DENT OF SHIVPUR VARANASI UTTARPRADESH, PRESUNT AUDRESS THROUGH SMT. RANJANA JAIN W/0 SHRI V.K. JAIN, RESIDENT OF S.B.I. COLONY, KRANTINAGAR, CITY- BILASPUR, DISTRICT- BILASPUR C.G. APPEAL UNDRR SKCTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. J M.A.fC) No.782 OF 2008 Appellant Respondents Claiinants Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Bilaspur (CG) Kumari Priyanka Singh and others POST FOR ORDER ON K DECEIVIBER. 2011 Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge <_. ^ CN. ^ • ^ <:-. t' 1 ^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) No.782 OF 2008 Appellant The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Bilaspur (CG) Vs Respondents Claimants Kumari Priyanka Singh and others Present: Mr. SudhirAgrawal, counsel forthe appellant/insurance company. Mr. D.N. Prajapati, counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. Rakesh Sahu, counsel for respondent No. 2. ORDER (Passedon \ x December, 2011) G. Minhaiuddin. J 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 14.11.2007 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Pratappur, Distt. Surguja, (in short "the Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 37/07, fastening liability upon the appellant/insurance company, jointly and severally, along with driver and owner, to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of presentation of the claim petition till its payment, to respondent No. 1/injured claimant. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per averments made in the claim petition, are that on 13.9.2002 at about 4.30 pm, while Ku. Priyanka Singh, aged about 6 years, was returning from her school, respondent No.S/driver Durga Tiwari by driving truck bearing registration No. ^"•;..-. C.G.10 Z.B./0862 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Ku. Priyanka and drove over her left foot. The injured was taken to District Hospital, Ambikapur for treatment, where on 14.9.2002 her left foot was amputated, resulting in 45% permanent disability to the injured. Therefore, injured/claimant Ku. Priyanka Singh, through her natural guardian Smt. Kusum Devi, w/o Late Amardev Singh, filed a claim petition under Section 166.0fthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") for a total compensation of Rs.11,58,800/- under various heads. 3. However, learned Tribunal, after hearing counsel for the respective parties and after close scrutiny of the evidence led before it, by the impugned award granted a total compensation pf Rs.1,60,000/- in favour of the injured/claimant, fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the appellanVinsurance company, jointly and severally, along with respondents No. 2 & 3/owner & driver of the vehicle. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned award. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has contended that the vehicle truck bearing registration No. CG 10- ZB/0862 was not involved in the accident and has been subsequently involved after due deliberation by lodging a First Information Report on 1.2.2003, after about 3 Vi months of the accident, which took place on 13.9.2002. He has further contended thgt there has been collusion between respondent No.2/owner and respondent No.l/claimant, on account of which the appellanVinsurance company had moved an application under '^ '! ;^. ^ nn.^ A 1 \^» Section 170 of the Act, 1988, which was allowed by the claims Tribunal. Learned counsel has also contended that up till now the investigation has not been completed and as such, no charge sheet has been filed against respondent No.S/driver Durga Tiwari of the vehicle in questionand the offending truck has not been seized by the investigating agency till date, which demonstrates that truck No. CG 10-ZB/0862 was not involved in the accident. 6. In addition to this, learned counsel has contended that there has been breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by respondent No.2/owner because respondent No.S/driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. Further, in the absence of evidence of the doctor, it could not be said to have been proved that respondent No-1/injured Ku. Priyanka Singh has sustained 45% permanent disability in her left leg. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.l/claimant and respondent No.2/owner have supported the impugned award and contended that the appellant/insurance company has been rightly held liable to pay compensation on the basis of insurance policy. 8. On behalf of injured claimant Ku. Priyanka Singh, her natural guardian mother Kusum Devi has examined herself as AW-1 and Mukesh Prasad Gupta and Ramdas as AW-2 and AW-3 respectively. Luvkumar Pandey, Assistant Sub Inspector, has been examined as a court witness. To substantiate its contention, A.P. Gupta, Development Officer, has been examined as NAW-1 by the appellant/insurance company, who has proved the insurance policy (Ex.D/1), which was issued by the appellant/insurance company in _JL. I, c' ^»wn favour of respondent No.2/owner Smt. Ranjana Jain and which was effective from 26.6.2002 to 25.6.2003. It is not in dispute that the accident resulting in sustaining of permanent disability in the left leg of Ku. Priyanka Singh took place on 13.9.2002 at about 4.30 pm and FIR was lodged by Kusum Devi (AW-1), mother of the claimant/injured, on 1.2.2003 at about 1 pm i.e. about 3 ^ months after the accident. 9. So far as delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the hlon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others, reported in (2011)4-SCC 693 has observed, in paras 17, 18 & 19, asunder: 17. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. 18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. 19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons." 10. Mukesh Prasad Gupta (AW-2) has claimed himself to be an eyewitness of the accident and has stated that on 13.9.2002 at about 4.30 pm when respondent No.l/claimant Ku. Priyanka Singh was returning from her school, that at main road near Village - Dhondha, respondent No.S/driver Durga Tiwari by rashly and negligently driving the vehicle truck No. CG 10-ZB/0862 had caused the aceident, on account of which front wheel of the truck had run over the left foot of Ku. Priyanka Singh, which caused crush injury, ~m^' T3"^ -•^ ;v^ '^^^--^' '^....-. 6 resulting in amputation of the left foot. This witness Mukesh Prasad Gupta (AW-2) in very clear terms stated that after the accident, he had stopped the truck and the villagers had also gathered on the spot and on enquiry, the driver of the said truck disclosed his name as Durga Tiwari and name of the transport company as Vardhman Transport Company. As per statement of this witness, he had disclosed the number of the truck and name of the driver on the date of accident itself to mother of the claimant namely Kusum Devi (AW-1). The accident had occurred on 13.9.2002 and admittedly, the FIR (Ex.A/1) was lodged after about 3 72 months on 1.2.2003. 11. Now the question to be considered is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a satisfactory explanation has been given by the claimant's mother Kusum Devi (AW-1) for lodging the FIR (Ex.A/1) belatedly on 1.2.2003? 12. Kusum Devi (AW-1) has stated that Mukesh Prasad Gupta (AW-2) had told her the number of the truck, which had caused the accident. As such, on this point, statement of Mukesh Prasad Gupta (AW-2) finds corroboration from the statement of Kusum Devi (AW-1). Regarding delay in lodging of FIR, Kusum Devi (AW-1) has stated that from the date of accident i.e. 13.9.2002, she remained in District Hospital, Ambikapur with her daughter injured Ku. Priyanka Singh for about 2 ^ months and after that, her daughter Ku. Priyanka Singh was discharged and medicines had continued for about a year thereafter. Kusum Devi (AW-1), in para-10 of her examination-in-chief, has stated that she is a widow and was attending her minor daughter, aged about 6 years, who has been rendered disabled on account of injuries sustained in the accident and therefore, she could not lodge the report before 1 .2.2003. 13. The appellanVinsurance company as well as respondent No.2/owner and respondentNo.S/driver have not been able to show that there was any animosity between the owner and the driver on the one side and the family of the claimant on the other. Respondent No.2/owner had not denied the fact that respondent No.S/g^rt^r Durga Tiwari was the driver of her truck at the relevant point of time. However, there was no reason for Kusum Devi (AW-1) and Mukesh Prasad Gupta (AW-2) to falsely implicate respondent No.S/driver Durga Tiwari and the vehicle i.e. truck No. CG 10-ZB/0862 in the accident. 14. Thus, in view of the statements of Kusum Devi (AW-1), Mukesh Prasad Gupta (AW-2), Ramdas (AW-3) and court witness Luvkumar Pandey, Asstt. Sub Inspector, it stands established that the vehicle in question, at the relevant point of time, was being driven by respondent No.S/driver Durga Tiwari, which caused the accident, resulting in grievous injuries to respondent No.1 Ku. Priyanka Singh and consequently, amputation of her left foot, and delay in lodging the FIR (Ex.A/1) has been satisfactorily explained. 15. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant/insurance company that as the offending truck as well as driving licence of its driver have not been seized till now, therefore, it could not be said that the driver of the vehicle in question was having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident.___^——- •-J[;-^ ..^^^- ^f^ ^; ^. 16. From perusal of the LCR, it is found that a phatocopy of driving licence of respondent No.S/driver Durga Tiwari has been filed by respondent No.2/owner before the claims Tribunal, which is on record. On perusing the said photocopy of the driving licence, it is found that the same was issued for a heavy goods vehicle and was valid on the date of accident i.e. 13.9.2002. The burden to prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident was on the appellant/insurance company, but it has not adduced any evidence in this regard. Therefore, on the basis of photocopy of the driving licence available on record, it stands established that respondent No.S/driver Durga Tiwari was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive heavy goods vehicle i.e. truck on the date of accident. 17. So far as sustaining of grievous injuries resulting in 45% disablement in the left leg of respondent No.l/Ku. Priyanka Singh is concerned, although the doctor has not been examined on behalf of the claimant, but on the basis of documents (Ex.A/1 to A/3) filed on behalf of the respondent No.l/claimant, it stands proved that in the accident the claimant Ku. Priyanka Singh had sustained grievous injures, resulting in amputation of her left foot. According to the certificate (Ex.A/2) issued by the District Disability Board, District Hospital, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG), she has sustained 45% permanent physical impairment in the left lower limb, and on account of this injury, her future prospects as well as her marriage prospects have been rendered bleak to a considerable extent. In additibn to this, keeping in view the mental suffering and agony, which she and her family members had undergone, the amount of —T7^ l^ i ^' t- 9 compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, appears to be just and proper, and by any yardstick, the same cannot be termed as excessive or exorbitant. As such, so far as quantum is concerned, no interference is called for by this Court. 18. In the result, theappeal being without any substance deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned award dated 14.11.2007 passed by the claims.Tribunal in Claim Case No. 37/07 is hereby affirmed. 19. No order as to costs. Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^