<^) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR<'AT BILASPUR M.Appeal(C)No. [£>1& /2010 .DiVSSJOr Appellants Ranjit Rai, agedabout 32 years, S/o Chitranjan Rai, R/o Chote Kapsi, Thana and Tahsil Pakhanjore, Distt. ;. Kanker ." Owner & Driver ^^•: R-R-m^'M^i -^ pies® .......^^ 'd Versus Respondents „ 1.^, Smt Ghahdna Dey^aged aboyt 19 years; Claimant ^ W/ o Late Indrajeet Dey, ^ Pramod Dey, aged about 54 years, S/o Dengucharan: Dey,. , ,'' • ^3.^ Sint. Radha Laxmi, aged bout45'years,- W/o'PramadDey, • :- • ^ , :; ^' Ail R/o.Village P.V. 35, Atpresenf R/o Mai-n -Road, Kapsi, Thana and Tahsil Pakhanjore, Distt. U.B. Kanker 4. • The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Adarsh Bal Mandir, Near Panjabi Gurudwara, Dhamtari, ^'^4 - ^Vips-w^.'^.-a-i ^d fr) ) / vsa'sssi! ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri ,1 Hon'bie Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. M.A.(C-lNo. 1016 of 201 < Ranjit Rai. Versus Smt. Chandna Dey and others. Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the appetlant. Shri Anand Shukla, counsei for the respondents No. 1 io 3. Shri AJay Mlshra, counsel for the respondent No.4. Following ORAL ORDER (04/03/2011) orai order of the Court was passed by This appeat has been filed against the impugned award of Motor Accldent Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) Bhanupratappur, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 43/2009 by the owner/driver of the vehicle, whereby the Claims Tribunal has imposed the liability to pay compensatton to the claimants upon the owner/appeliant. 2, The brief facts of the -case are that one Pradeep Haldar, the informant, lodged F.I.R. at Police Station Korar at 8:10 a.m. on 27/07/2009 about the accident Jn question which had taken place at 7:45 a.m. on the same day. The distance of Police Station from the piace of accident was half tatometer. The informant was one of the occupants of the vehicle, which was Mahindra Max bearing reflistration No. C.G.19 D-0151. According to the F.1.R. he had taken the vehicle on hire. The owner of the vehicle was driving the vehicle himself. Other persons were also sittino induding deceased namely indrajeet Dey. The driver was driving the vehlcle rashly and negligently resulting in coSiision with the tree, Indrajeet Dey sustained fata! injury who died later on, In the morgue intimation also i ^^.^; saass^ .;?>! '^ ^n ..^^~: •L'L. .'\. ^?3 •*,. •^.^'/ i%,..'':€./' '"> — thls fact was mentioned that the informant of the F.I.R. namely Pradeep Haidar had taken the vehlcle on hire. Pradeep Hatdar signed the F.1.R. as we!l as morgue intimation sheet, however th^ claim petition was filed by the claimanSs narrating a different story to the effect that when the deceased was accompanying the vehicl^, owner was driving his vehicle and due to rash and negligent driving the vehicle cotlided with the tree resulting of whlch Indrajeet Dey died. The claim petition did not show that the vehicte was taken on hire, but it was stated therein that on the direction of the owner of the vehicle i.e. appeliant, deceased was going with him to purchase the material for the purpose of mamage ceremony to be held in the house ofthe appellant. 3, in the statemsnt given by the Chandna Dey widow of the deceased it has been stated that owner of the vehicle appetlant namely Ranjit Rai as hercloserelative. 4. In the ctaim petition in para 4 age of the deceassd was 27 years which was denied in the written statement filed by the appellant due to lack of knowledge. The profession of the deceased mentioned in paragraph 5 has also been denied by the owner due to !ack of knowledge. The place and date of ths acddent has also been denied due to !ack of knowledge. The claimants' names are mentioned in paragraph 20 but in the written statement filed by the appeilant'Qwner the same was.denied due to iack of kno'wledge. 5. Therefore, if in the written statement it has been specificaily menttoned by the appellant that he had no knowiedge about the deceased, his age and profession, the statement of the widow contrary to the same that the owner was their clQse relative cannot be accepted. The &!£::-- e^-»;: 3 5" facts narrated in the F.I.R, and morgue intimation signed by the eye witness informer has been changed in the c'aim petition and the statement. The informer and eye witness nam.ely Pradeep Haldar was called in the witness box as clalmants' w'tness who proved his signatures on F.I.R. as well as morgue intimation sheet i.e. Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/3 but he had denied that he was golng to purchase the material with others in the vehicie in qusstlon. He has a!so denied that the vehicle was taken on hire he has also stated in his cross-examination that he had not mentioned in She F.I.R. and morgue intimation that he had taken the vehicle on hire and was going to Raipur to purchase some goods, though in the F.t.R. he had mentioned hls profession as We!ding Mechanic. 6. With regard to the quantum, a cross objection has been filed but we see that income of the deceased was from the Kirana Shop, the shop has not been closed but stitl CQntinuing, therefore though some adverse effect can be presumed in the income from Kirana Shop, but there can not be total loss of dependency, therefore there is no scope for enhancement of the amount ofcompensation. 7. In view of above, cross appeal is dismissed. 8. The Insurance Policy was a package poiicy for private car, but according to the conditions of the insurance policy the car could not have been used for hire purpose. At the time of accident it was being used on hire and therefore the Tribunal held the insurance company not liable to pay compensation due to breach of poHcy and imposed the liability upon the owner to pay compensation. 9. Learned counsei for the appellant has submitted that whatever statement has been given before the Court, Claims Tribunal should have •NNsaauiBaaifidiBiiBess? rfWt^m.,/-' .t:-;l .^-. ' '^:. -^) taken it as true before the Tribunal. but to our opinion if there was contradiction between the story narrated in the F.i.R. and in the claim petition and new story was introduced the same was not reliable unless there is cogent truth. The contents of F.I.R., is to be Saken as a whole and it cannot be believed partially just to take support of total new story. The F.I.R. was prompt but the claim petition was filed at a belated stage and the story narrated therein 's different to the F.I.R. and morgue intimation thus the same was an after thought. In the case of the Orienta! Insurance Company Llmlted vs. Premlata Shukla and others reported in {2007} 13 SCC 47S the Hon'bte Apex Court has held in paragraphs 13 and 14 as under:- "13. However, the Tactum ofan accldent could aiso be proved from the first infQrmation report. It is ateo to be noted that once a part Qf the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing the sams on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved. Both the partles have relled thereupon. It was marked as an exhibit as both the parties intsnded to re!y upon them. 14. Once a part of it is relied upon by both the parties, the learned Tribuna! cannot be said to have committed any illegalifrj? in relying upon the other part, irrespective of the contents of the document having been proved or not. If the contents have been proved, the questfon of reliance thsreupon only upon a part thereof and not upon the rest. o" the technical ground that the same had not been proved in accordance with iaw, would not arise." 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no occasion to considera different storythan narrated in the F.I.R. as itwas prompt and lodged byeye witness namely Pradeep l-1aldar. ^ '^ •5 12. In vtew of the above, no case for interference in the impugnec award is made out. The appea! therefore fails and is dismissed. 13. Noorderastocosts. Sd,'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 1 ;^