The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company against the award dated 02.05.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Chittorgarh in Motor Accident Claim Application Case No. 326/2008.
The respondent-claimants preferred a claim petition seeking grant of compensation on account of death of Ratanlal who died in a accident which took
place on 28.02.2008, on various grounds before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh. The reply was filed on behalf of the
appellant-insurance company as well as the respondents/non-claimants (Driver & Owner of the offending Car) denying the allegations in the claim
petition. Thereafter, on completion of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the issues.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal decided the claim petition of the respondents/claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.
5,91,500/- in favour of the respondents/claimants and directed the appellant as well as respondents/non-claimants to pay an interest @ 9% per annum
on the amount awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally.
Heard.
In the present case, the factum of accident with insured vehicle has been disputed.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal fell into error while considering the fact that the accident took place by
the insured vehicle RJ-09C-5412. He further submits that immediately after the accident, the FIR was registered in which the number of vehicle was
stated to be RJ-09C-5254. He further submits that in order to get the compensation, the number of the offending vehicle has been changed. He
submits that the original number of vehicle which was initially involved in the accident was changed when the charge-sheet was filed by the police,
after the investigation.
Learned counsel for the appellant while taking this Court to the evidence recorded by the learned Tribunal particularly the cross-examination of AW-4
(Gajraj Singh) who was the Investigating Officer of the Criminal Case, has submitted that the requisite information with respect to the Indica Car No.
RJ-09C-5412 was not specifically obtained by him during the course of investigation from the RTO. He further submits that when the FIR was lodged
by one Jamil Khan who stated the number of the offending vehicle being RJ-09C-5254 has not been produced in the witness box before the Tribunal
and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the number of the vehicle stated to be given by Jamil Khan in the First Information Report. He further
submits that in the cross-examination of AW-3 Yashwant Singh, he has also stated that Jamil has submitted the First Information Report in his
presence and the number of the car was also stated by him of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident.
On the strength of these arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that just to get compensation from the Insurance Company the
present vehicle has been involved which is insured by the appellant.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal has correctly evaluated the testimony of eye-witness in the shape of
AW-3 Yashwant Singh who has categorically stated that while he was driving the motor-cycle, he was following Ratanlal just at a distance about 20
feet and he saw the accident. After the accident, he took Ratanlal to the hospital in the same Indica Car (RJ-09C-5412) which colided with the motor-
cycle driven by Ratanlal. The Investigating Officer of the Criminal Case (AW-4 Gajraj Singh) has also deposed before the learned Tribunal that his
investigating also revealed the involvement of the Indica Car No. RJ-09C-5412 in the present case. The counsel for the respondents further submits
that the Tribunal after proper appreciation of the evidence on record has correctly come to the conclusion that the vehicle involved in the present case
was Indica Car RJ-09C-5412.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the award passed by the learned Tribunal as well as relevant records of the
case.
The sequence of events which have been projected in the present case show that Ratanlal who is the deceased in the present case was driving the
motor-cycle and he was being followed by AW-3 Yaswant Singh on the motor-cycle on the date of accident i.e. 28.02.2008. Immediately, after the
accident, AW-3 Yaswant Singh took the deceased Ratanlal to the hospital in the Indica Car RJ-09C-5412 which was involved in the accident. As per
the evidence of eye-witness in clear and unambiguous terms, the involvement of Indica Car RJ-09C-5412 in the accident cannot be disbelieved.
Further, the investigation in the criminal case also reveals the fact that on notice being given to the owner of the vehicle Ramchhabile under Section
133 of the M.V. Act, he disclosed the fact that on 28.02.2008, the subject vehicle was being driven by Narayan Lal. The disclosure of the name of the
driver in the statement of the AW-3 Yashwant Singh also corroborates the fact that on 28.02.2008, the offending vehicle was being driven by
Narayan Lal. The learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly come to the conclusion that the vehicle involved in the
present case was Indica Car No. RJ-09C-5412. The relevant portion of order of learned Tribunal which is reproduced as under is, therefore, upheld.
““ 1
, 2 , 3 4
3 28.02.08
09 5412 ,
,
09 5412 09 5254 ,
1
4
5412 3
09 5412
, 3
09
5412 4
09 5412 133
4 09 5412
28.02.08
5
3 09
5412 ,
◌ 09 5412
28.02.08
09 5412
1 â€
This Court is also not impressed by the argument that on the date of lodging of the FIR by Jamil, the number of the Indica Car was stated to be RJ-
09C-5254 in the First Information Report and if that is so, the appellant could have produced Jamil in the witness box to fortify the fact that because of
the Indica Car which was informed in the accident was having No.RJ-09C-5254. Failure to produce Jamil in the witness box by the appellant, cannot
be made dis-advantageous to the claimants. The claimants have produced evidence on record in the form of eye witness which clearly proves that
Ratan Lal died because of collision of the Indica Car bearing No.RJ-09C-5412 which was being driven by Narayan Lal on the date of the accident.
The finding of fact arrived at by the learned Tribunal is just and correct.
Taking into consideration the fact that Indica Car No.RJ-09C-5412 was involved in the accident and no other point was argued, the appeal lacks merit
and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.
