SUREKHA AND ORS. Vs. SANGAPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants before the court are wife and children of the deceased. It is the case of the claimants that on 20.12.2005 at about 7.p.m. deceased was riding a motor cycle and the motor cycle collided with the alleged offending vehicle, i.e., a Tata Indica Car bearing Reg. No. KA -48/M -137.

(2.) IT is the case of the claimants that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident. The deceased is alleged to have suffered grievous injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. The original complainant in his complaint to the police authorities had clearly stated that he did not know the registration number of the offending vehicle and based on the said complaint police commenced the investigation and have identified the vehicle, it is claimed that based on the statement of certain eye -witnesses, particularly, C.W. 14 in C.C. No. 248/2006 the vehicle was identified by the Investigating Officer and thereafter seized under panchanama and the driver was prosecuted by the jurisdictional police. The respondents, namely the owner of the vehicle and the insurer entered appearance and submitted their respective written statement. The owner has stoutly resisted the claim and in fact denied that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of car, and has pleaded that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the deceased.

(3.) IN effect the 2nd respondent alleged perpetuation of a fraud by the claimants in connivance with the jurisdictional police. In the above background the parties went to trial and the claimants examined eight witnesses and got marked 41 documents on their behalf. The 2nd respondent got examined four witnesses including the Investigating Officer (P.S.I.), D.S.P. and C.P. I. and got marked 11 documents. The tribunal after assessing the above material concurred with the defence set up by the 2nd respondent and concluded that no accident as described by the claimants had taken place and that the offending vehicle had not been involved in any accident with the motor cycle of the deceased and that the vehicle had been falsely implicated in the offence and that the fraud had been perpetuated by the claimants in connivance with the police and witnesses.