The present misc. appeals arise out of the same accident involving similar facts, therefore, they are being decided together by this common judgment.
Appeal No.467/2001 arises out of the MACT Claim Case No. 456/94 decided on 09/01/2001 for the payment of compensation on account of the
death of Anil who was the son of the appellants, whereas Appeal No. 466/2001 arises out of the MACT Claim Case No.457/1994 decided on
09/01/2001 wherein the appellant Nandlal prayed for compensation to be paid to him for having suffered injuries in the accident.
In pursuance of the two claim petitions preferred before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara being Claim Case No. 456/94 (for the
death of Anil) and 457/94 (for the injuries suffered by Nandlal), learned Tribunal framed seven issues.
The issue No.1 in both the claim cases read as under :-Claim Case No. 456/94
. . .
“.1. . , 3
06/ - 1218 ?
... â€
Claim Case No. 457/94
. . . ..
“1. , 3 06/ - 1218
? ... â€
The other issues are not being reproduced by this Court for the reason that basically the finding on issue No.1 is only relevant in these two appeals.
The factual details necessary to be noted in this case are that on 17/07/1994 at about 9 p.m. while the appellant, his son Anil and Smt. Durga Devi
(wife of Nandlal) were travelling on a Spark Moped from Sanganeri Gate to R.C. Vyas Colony, they met with an accident in front of the house of Dr.
S.K. Sharma. It is stated that they met with an accident from a jeep which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Gauttam. The Moped
was being driven by Anil with a normal speed and on the correct side of the road. Immediately after dashing the jeep with the Moped, the driver of the
jeep escaped from the scene of accident. Appellant’s son Anil succumbed to the injuries on the spot, whereas appellant Nandlal received grievous
injuries and was taken to the hospital at Bhilwara. On the next day, he was shifted to the hospital at Ahmedabad where he remained admitted for 20
days. On the said day of incident i.e. on 17/07/1994 at around 10 p.m. Arun Kumar who is the other son of the appellant Nandlal lodged an F.I.R. It
was in these circumstances police investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, statement of Smt. Durga was also recorded. The police
after investigation filed challan against the driver of the jeep under Sections 279 and 304A IPC but after the trial charges were not found to be proved
against the respondent driver i.e. Gauttam and, therefore, he was acquitted in the criminal case.
The appellants in their claim petitions reiterated that the Moped was driven by Anil on the correct side of the road in the slow speed and because of
the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by Gauttam, the accident had taken place resulting into the death of Anil and causing severe injuries to the
appellant- Nandlal.
Before the Tribunal, the pleadings were filed and exchanged between the parties. The appellant Nandlal appeared in the witness box besides other
witnesses. The documents of the criminal case were also filed before the learned Tribunal as well as the other relevant documents including the
documents relating to insurance of vehicle etc.
The learned Tribunal after appreciating the entire evidence on record decided the issue No.1 against the appellants holding that it cannot be proved in
the circumstances that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by driver of Jeep No.RJ-06/C-1218 and thus the claim petitions were
dismissed vide two separate orders of the same date i.e. on 09/01/2001.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that appellant Nandlal who was the eye witness to the accident categorically deposed before
learned Tribunal that the moped was being driven by his son Anil on the correct side of the road in a slow speed but the Jeep bearing registration
No.RJ-06/C-1218 which was being driven by Gauttam in a rash and negligent manner caused the accident in which Anil died on the spot and he
suffered grievous injuries. He further submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this very important eye witness.
Learned counsel further submitted that since Nandlal was grievously injured and was taken to Ahmedabad hospital for treatment and on regaining
consciousness, he recollected the incident which had happened and disclosed the name of driver of the jeep as well as number of the jeep. Therefore,
learned Tribunal wrongly discarded testimony of this injured eye witness of the accident.
He further submitted that the jeep was being driven by Gautam is also fortified from the fact that in the notice under Section 133 of the Motor
Vehicles Act which was given to Shri Tej Singh who stated that on 17/07/1994, Gauttam was driving the jeep which caused the accident. He argued
that the learned Tribunal fell in error by relying upon the findings of learned criminal court. He further contended that there was no reason to get
influenced by the findings of learned Criminal Court as the proceedings before the claims Tribunal stand on a totally different footing. He, therefore,
urged that the findings recorded by learned Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside and the claim petitions of the appellants may be allowed by
awarding a suitable compensation in the matter.
Per contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the entire material placed on record and rightly
came to the conclusion that the accident was not caused by Jeep No.RJ-06/C-1218 and thus, the issue No.1 was rightly decided against the
appellants-claimants. He further submitted that the findings of fact arrived at by learned Tribunal are after due appreciation of the statements and
evidence recorded before it. There is no question of any influence of the findings of learned Criminal Court as they are only having persuasive value
and, therefore, no wrong has been committed by learned Tribunal considering the findings of the Criminal Court.
I have considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the record of the learned Tribunal.
True it is that the appellants have lost their son Anil in the accident on 17/07/1994. The fact remains that the accident had occurred on the fateful day
but it is necessary to prove involvement of the vehicle with which the accident has taken place.
The facts narrated above disclose that on 17/07/1994, it was around 9 p.m. when the appellants’ Moped met with an accident with the offending
vehicle i.e. Jeep. I am of the view that the best witness in the present set of facts would have been Smt. Durga who is the wife of the appellant
Nandlal and mother of the deceased Anil. More particularly, when she had not sustained any injuries. Surprisingly, she had not been produced as a
witness before the Tribunal. Therefore, the correct facts to prove the accident with a jeep as alleged in the claim petition could not be brought before
the Tribunal. Non appearance of Smt. Durga before the Tribunal is also fatal to the claimants and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly analyzed
the other material available on record for coming to the conclusion that the jeep of the respondent was not involved in the accident.
AW-1 Nandlal who is an injured claimant himself stated in his statement that after the accident, he became unconscious but before becoming
unconscious, he had the driver of the jeep and the number of the jeep but the same were disclosed by him after 20 days to his son and then he filed a
complaint which was sent to the police station on 14/09/1994. It has also come on record that Nandlal regained consciousness on 3rd or 4th day. I fail
to understand that if a person has regained consciousness on 03rd or 04th day then why the disclosure of name and number of the jeep is made
approximately after 02 months, and, therefore, it creates doubt in the mind of this Court that the name and number of the jeep have been
concocted/established for the purpose of getting compensation.
It is also noted by the learned Tribunal that Smt. Durga in her statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that immediately
after the accident, she disclosed the name of the driver and the number of the jeep to her husband. If Smt. Durga can disclose the name and number
of the jeep driver to her husband then why the same was not disclosed to her son Arun, who lodged the complaint of the accident on the very same
day. Conspicuously, in the complaint written by Arun, there is no name and number of the jeep involved in the accident. It is further noticed that Smt.
Durga who did not receive any grievous injury could have disclosed the name of the driver and number of the jeep at both the places i.e. in the FIR as
well as in her statement before the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C Tribunal but neither the name and number was disclosed by her own to her son
Arun who lodged the FIR nor in her statement before police. Besides this, she has not been produced in the witness box. Not only this in the statement
of Arun son of claimants (Nandlal and Smt. Durga) which was recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also the name and number of the
jeep is not disclosed. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants could not prove that their moped met with an accident with jeep No.
RJ06/C-1218 driven by respondent Gauttam.
Taking into consideration the sequence of events and the fact that the incident took place at 09:00 P.M. or sometime thereafter. In the State of
Rajasthan, generally it is quite dark and to recognize the face of the driver and see the number after having a collision is highly improbable.
In these circumstances, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants are not tenable and this Court is of the opinion that the
appellants could not prove that Jeep No.RJ-06/C-1218 driven by Gauttam was not involved in the accident resulting into death of Anil and injuries
sustained by Claimant Nandlal. Further, merely because a notice under Section 133 of the M.V. Act was given on which the reply was given by Tej
Singh that the jeep driven by Gauttam met with an accident on 17/07/1994, I am of the view that the finding of the learned Tribunal is correct as Tej
Singh (owner of the jeep) has stated that although he has made the signatures on the documents from “A†to “B†but the inscription over that
is not in his handwriting. I have also examined the document wherein the notice under Section 133 of the M.V. Act was given and on the same, it is
written that Jeep No.RJ-06/C-1218 driven by Gauttam met with an accident on 17/07/1994 and signatures of Tej Singh have been made. The same
does not inspire confidence leading to the fact that the said vehicle was involved in the accident. Besides this, it is noted that the Criminal Case filed
against Gauttam has also resulted into the acquittal and charges having been not found proved against him.
In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds no infirmity in the judgments impugned passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bhilwara. Both the appeals, are bereft of merit and the same are hereby dismissed.
