AASH KUMAR YADAV Vs. MAHADEV @ MAHENDRA YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the award dated 13.4.2018 passed by II Additional Judge to the Court of I Additional MACT, Raipur (CG) in MACT No.294/2015 whereby application u/s 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (in short "the Act") of the claimants has been dismissed, the appellants/claimants have filed the instant appeal u/s 173 of the Act.

(2.) As per averments in the claim petition, on 25.8.2013 Bhupendra Kumar Yadav along with his elder brother Praveen Yadav was going towards Rajim from Fingeshwar on motorcycle. However, on the way, non-applicant No.1 Madhav @ Mahendra Yadav, driver & owner of vehicle Scorpio bearing No. CG 15B 0247, driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased and as a result thereof, both Bhupendra Yadav and his brother Praveen Yadav died. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.2. On report being made, offence under Section 304A of IPC was registered under Crime No.97/2013 against non-applicant No.1 vide FIR (Ex.P/2) and after investigation, charge sheet was filed against non-applicant No.1 and one Peeluram Yadav under Sections 302 , 120B , 34 of IPC vide Ex.P/1.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that initially FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered against non-applicant No.1 under Section 304A of IPC but after completion of investigation, charge sheet (Ex.P/1) was filed against non-applicant No.1 and one Peeluram Yadav under Sections 302 , 120B , 34 of IPC and after trial, both of them were acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband vide judgment dated 12.11.2014 passed in ST No.45/2013 (Ex.D/1) by extending them benefit of doubt as the prosecution could not prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against them that they used the vehicle for committing murder and from the evidence of Ramesh Kumar Sahu and Hukum Singh it appeared that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle Scorpio. No evidence was adduced before the criminal Court to prove intention on the part of the accused persons to cause death of the deceased. However, in view of the entire evidence available on record, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of death of the deceased being simpliciter murder and not by use of motor vehicle. Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded to the Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law.