HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR &IVISION BENCH Coram: Hon'ble Mr.T.P.SHARMA <& Hon'ble Mr.R.L.JHANWAR, JJ. M.A.(C) No. 567/2009 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS/ GLAIMANTS:- RESPONbENTS- APPLJCANTS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, PARMANANb BHAWAN, RAJENbRA PARK CHOWK, BESIDE OF BAL PETROL PUMP, TAHSIL <& DISTRICT-bURG (CHHATTCSGARH). Vrs. 1. SMT. SAVITA VERMA W/0 LATE RAJNISH KUMAR VERMA, AGE 27 YRS. 2. AJAY VERMA S/0 SHRI MANGANI RAM VERMA, AGE 55 YRS. 3. SMT. SHASHIKALA VERMA W/0 SHRI AJAY VERMA, AGE 50 YRS. ALL RESIbENT OF KARMCHARI NAGAR, SIKOLABHATHA; DURG, THANA-MOHAN NAGAR, TAHSIL <& &ISTRICT-OURG (CHHATTCSGARH) 4. BHANUPRATAP SINOH SAHU S/0 SHRI CHAINSINGH SAHU, AGE 35 YRS, RESIDENT VILLAGE JANJGIRI, THANA -AND/\, TAHSIL <& &ISTRICT OURG (CHHATTISGARH). 5. SITA AGROTECH LIMITEt), BEHINt) MILPARA. t)URG, DISTRICT (CHHATTCSGARH). PRIVATE OF COURT, TAHSIL <& bURG ANb M.A.CONo. 797/2009 ^'' '•^_^t^y~ •^•^^^^?^ (A RESPONOENTS/ CLAIMANTS:- APPELLANT THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, PARMANANb BHAWAN, RAJENt^RA PARK CHOWK, BESIDE OF BAL PETROL PUMP, TAHSIL <& DISTRICT- OURG (CHHATTISGARH). Vrs. 1. SMT. SAVITA VERMA W/0 LATE RAJNISH KUMAR VERMA, /\GE 27 YRS. RESIOENT OF KARMCHARI NAGAR, SIKOLABHATHA. OURG, THANA MOHAN NAGAR. TAHSIL <& DISTRICT t)URG (CHHATTCSGARH). 2. BHANUPRATAP SINGH SAHU S/0 SHRI CHAINSINGH SAHU, AGE 35 YRS, RESIDENT VILLAGE JANJOIRI, THANA ANDA, TAHSIL <& DISTRICT DURG (CHHATTISGARH) 5. SITA AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITEO, BEHINb OF COURT, MILPARA, bURG, TAHSIL <& DISTRICT DURG (CHHATTISGARH) fAPPEAL UNbER SECTCON 173 OF MOTOR VEHCILE ACT. 1988.) Present: Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate for the appellants in M.A. ( C) Nos.567/2009 <& 797/2009) Mr. Jitendra 6upta, Advocate for the respondents in M.A. ( C) Nos. 567/2009 & 797/2009) RESONDENTS/ NON-APPLICANTS ORAL -JUDGMENT (Passedon 04/08/2010) The judgment of the Court was delivered by T.P.Sharma, J.:- 1. Since both the appeals i.e. M. A.(C) No. 567/2009 and M.A. (C) No. 797/2009 based on same accident dated 25/9/07 in which son and father were died are being disposed of by this common judgment. By filing M.A.(C) No. 567/2009 by Oriental Insurance Company Limited/ appellant has challenged the /^^ ' "'^ 4, :~^ ^--^^ <<'-^..^,,^'' •^ ^ award dated 30/12/08 passed by 11th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunol (F.T.C.) Durg (in short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 20/2008 whereby on account of death of Rajnish Kumar Verma learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 13,49,800/- to respondents No. 1 to 3. Present appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited has also filed appeal against the award dated 30/12/08 passed by 11th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) Durg in claim case No. 21/2008 whereby compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been awarded to respondent No. 1 on account of death of Gaurav Verma. 2. Award is impu9ned on the ground that without any iota of evidence to prove that offending vehicle was driven by respondent Bhanupratap Singh and owned by respondent Sita Agrotech Private Limited learned Tribunal has awarded huge amount of the compensation to the claimants and thereby committed an illegality. 3. Brief case of the prosecution is on fateful night of 25/9/07 son and father namely Rajnish Kumar Verma and Gaurav Verma were going to burg by motorcycle while they were passing in front of Radha Swami Rice Mill the offending truck No. C.Q. 07-ZC/0335 came which was driven by respondent Bhanupratap Singh and owned by respondent Sita Agrotech Private Limited. Driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed the motorcycle resulting into instantaneously death of both the persons namely Rajnish Kumar Vermo ond Gaurav Vcrma. First Information Report was lodged. Aforesaid claim petitions were filed by the legal representatives of both the deceased. Driver A. ^s: * <.. t and owner of the vehicle have not contested the claim petition but Oriental Insurance Company Limited/appellant has contested the claim petition. 4. After providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation in aforesaid both the claim petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. 6. Award impugned and records of the Court below perused. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that in the present case claimants/respondents had not proved the facts that offending vehicle was driven by respondent Bhanupratap Singh and owned by respondent Sita Agrotech Private Limited bearing truck No. C.G. 07-ZC/0335 and in absence of such prove the driver, owner and Insurer of the vehicle are not liable for payment of compensation to the claimants on account of death of the persons. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that in the present case claimants have examined one Naresh Yadav as eye witness whose evidence does not inspire confidence. Evidence of other witness Surya Kumar Verma who has lodged the FIR is full of contraction relating to identity of the offending vehicle and is not sufficient for drawing an inference that respondent Bhanupratap Singh was driving the alleged offending vehicle. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeals and submits that this is beneficial legislation and no strict ^ prove like civil or criminal cases are required to prove the case by the poor claimants who had lost their parents/relatives. 10. Evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants and appellants are sufficient for drawing an inference that offending vehicle was driven by respondent Bhanupratap Singh and owned by respondent Sita Agrotech Private Limited which was insured by the appellant, Court below after appreciating the evidence rightly awarded the compensation to the claimants. 11. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have closely examined the evidence available on record, this is a claim case and no rule of strict prove or rule of evidence applicable to prove the case but parties are required to prove allegation made in petition or reply in the both the appeals only crucial question is remain for consideration is whether at the time of accident respondent Bhanupratap was driving the truck No. C.&. 07-ZC/0335 ond has caused accident. 12. In order to prove the aforesaid issues claimants have examined one Naresh Yadav, driver of dnother vehicle who is present neor the place of incident is finds support in promptly lodged First Information Report by witness Surya Kumar Verma, Constable. As per evidence of Naresh Yadav, he has seen the offending vehicle and number of offending vehicle was C.G. 07-ZC/0335 but in his cross examination he has admitted that he has not lod9ed the First Information Report. Tribunal has examined him on 24/7/08 after lapse of 10 months of the ^ accident. In the present case, offending truck has been seized after 3 months of the accident; even the statement of this witness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has not been recorded by the Police. As per his evidence he has not informed the nunber of the truck immediately to any person or relative of the deceased although his presence has been mentioned in the First Information Report promptty lodged against w^Rf ^rrft ^l^T but in absence of any corroboration eviderice of this witness is not safe for proving the fact that aforesaid truck was offending vehicle. Witness Surya Kumar Verma who has lodged the First Information Report has deposed in Para-2 of his evidence that he has not seen the number of truck He has lodged the First Information Report. First Information Report reveal that ^r^n^r <(Trft ^Tg^T but in his cross examinQtion Para 4 he has admitted the number of truck. Paras -2 & 3 of his evidence is contradictory to each other and considering the_First Information Report lodged by him it is difficult to accept his version relatin9 to number of offending vehicle except this evidence, claimants have not collected any other evidence although they have filed some copy of the documents relating to criminal case in which charge sheet is filed against driver Bhanupratap Singh but claimants have not examined investigating officer who had prima facie found the driver Bhanupratap Singh guilty for causing accident. Claimants have also not examined the person on the basis whose evidence Investigating Officer prima focie arrived at a finding that driver Bhanupratap Singh caused such :11 ^..J^ ~~c:^^^£^"t' c. .. \^ accident. Counsel for the respondents submits that criminal tn'al is still pending before the competent Court. 13. Evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants to prove the fact that vehicle driven by Bhanupratap Singh WQS offending vehicle is not sufficient to prove such fact. Claimants have not collected and examined the material witness to unfold real story although they are available. In these circumstances instead of dismissing the claim petition by allowed the appeal it would be just to remand the case for providing an opportunity of adducing substantial witnesses to unfold real story and to pass the award afresh. Consequently, both the oppeals i.e. M. A.( C) No. 567/2009 and M.A. ( C) No. 797/2009 are allowed. Awards impugned are hereby set-aside. Both the appeals were remanded back to the 11th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) burg for providing an opportunity to both the parties to adduce and rebut the evidence specially relating to use of aforesaid offending motor vehicle and to pass the award afresh. Parties are directed to present before the learned Tribunal on 13/9/2010 for further progress of the case. 14. No order as to costs. Sd/- T-P. Sharma Judge 8d/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge