INDRA BAHADUR VERMA Vs. PURSHOTTAM DAS NISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Indra Bahadur Verma, the owner of scooter No. UMV 4454, who is alleged to have caused the death of Sanichari Devi on 11.6.1988 and against whom the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by its award dated 14.2.1991 has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that under Sections 92-A, 110 and 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, a claim petition was filed by Purshottam Das Nishad, the husband and Rambhawati, the daughter of the deceased Sanichari Devi. An F.I.R. was lodged in that connection by one Srikant, the grandson of the deceased, alleging that on 11.6.1988 at about 7.35 p.m. the deceased was going to market to make some purchases and at a distance of 100 metres from the house the appellant was going on scooter and by that scooter the deceased met with an accident. In other words, the deceased being crushed down with the scooter became unconscious. Later on she was taken to hospital, where she died. In support of the claim petition three witnesses, namely, PW 1 Purshottam, husband of the deceased, Srikant, the informant, PW 2 and Rajesh Prasad, PW 3, were examined, who supported the case set up in the claim petition. Relying upon the statements of PWs 1 to 3, award has been given under the provisions of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (old Act) where the liability is without proof of negligence or without fault.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant has denied the case set up in the claim petition to the effect that neither any occurrence has taken place nor the appellant had been on scooter on that date, rather his scooter was parked in the house and the deceased did not meet with any accident, rather on account of some enmity the claim petition has been filed against the appellant. However, the defence version set up by the appellant has been disbelieved under the award. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal was not based on appraisal of evidence on record in as much as the discrepancies in the statement of PW 1 Purshottam have been ignored. Learned counsel emphasised that PW 1 Purshottam could not say correctly as to on which part of the body Sanichari Devi received injury. Similarly, other irregularities were also pointed out in the statements of PWs 2 and 3. I have considered the irregularities pointed out in the statements of PWs (the true copies of statements have been filed as Annexures 2, 3 and 4 to the stay application) but as a whole the same leads to conclusion that the deceased met with accident with the scooter of the appellant and she died as a result of the accident in the hospital. Learned counsel for the appellant emphasised that before one could be punished, it must be proved that there was negligence and fault. In that connection he placed reliance on Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan 1977 ACJ 118 (SC).