SUSHILA DEVIAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARPRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is under Section 110d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the claimants who were unsuccessful before the motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Chatur Singh, husband of the appellant no. 1 and father of the remaining appellants was posted as Lekhpal in Circle Sirsakalan. According to the claim petition, he on 2nd July, 1978, while going to visit the area in his circle, got down from a bus going from Jalaun to kuthond at a point from where a Kachcha shramdan road starts for village Bichauli. After getting down from the bus, while he was trying to cross the road, hit by Truck No. UTK 583 belonging to the respondent which was being driven rashly and negligently. He fell down and sustained injuries and was hospitalized in Sadar Hospital, Orai by his brother Harish Chandra Singh and died at 4. 00 a. m. on the next day in the hospital. A claim petition No. 1 of 1979 was filed for recovery of rs. 1,00,000 as compensation on the ground that he was getting salary at the rate of rs. 400 per month and had also agricultural income to the tune of Rs. 10,000 per year and was aged about 49 years. The claim petition was contested on the pleas inter alia that the accident in which Chatur Singh died took place by some unidentified vehicle and later on with the connivance of the police, the truck in question was involved in the accident and, as such, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensationamount. Otherpleas, such as the claimants are not dependents, in any view of the matter, the deceased was covered under Group Insurance Scheme and the application for recovery of the compensation amount under the provisions of U. P. Motor vehicles Act, 1989 is not maintainable, were also taken. The Claims Tribunal framed the following six issues:

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants submit following two points in support of the appeal: firstly, there is voluminous evidence on record toshowthattruckno. UTJ 583 belonging to the State was involved in the accident and secondly, the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal, though not awarded, is towards lower side. Taking the first point first, it may be noted thai the findings on the said issue went against the claimants principally on the ground that in the F. I. R. lodged by Harish Chandra Singh (P. W. 7), the brother of the deceased, at kotwali on the next date of the accident i. e. 3rd june, 1978 under Sections 279/338/304-A, i. P. C. , the truck number does not find place therein. The omission of registration number of the truck in the F. I. R. as also the fact that harish Chandra Singh, the informant was not an eye-witness of the accident weighed heavily against the claimants. The contention of the appellants' Counsel in this regard is that although the registration number of the truck is not mentioned in the F. I. R. , but that circumstance is not so vital to negate the appellants' claim in toto. There is overwhelming evidence on the record to show that afore stated afore stated truck was involved in the accident, he submits. It is not in dispute that Chatur Singh died on account of road accident. The question to be answered in the appeal is whether there is evidence to show that the truck in question caused the motor accident in which Chatur singh received fatal injuries. A bare perusal of the F. I. R. dated 3rd july, 1978 would show that the deceased got down from the bus at Kuthond near the newly constructed pucca Shramdan Marg leading to village Bichauli and while crossing road, a government truck (Sarkari Thela) coming from the side of Madaripur, which was being driven rashly and negligently going towards Jalaun, hit the deceased, with the result he got injuries on his head and body. He fell down and became unconscious. The truck ran away from the spot and the accident was witnessed by Prabhu Dayal son of Shiv Dayal Lohar, dularey Lal and Sewa Ram all residents of village Harsingpur. These persons informed about the accident at his residence (of the informant) and he rushed to the spot on a tractor. He carried away the injured person (Chatur Singh) to the Sadar Hospital, Oral where he was under medical treatment throughout night and in spite of best efforts made by the doctors he succumbed to death at about 4. 00 a. m. on account of injuries. The f. I. R. further states that the informant is not aware about the registration number of the truck, but the witnesses who are presently not available are aware about it.

(3.) A reading of the said F. I. R. clearly shows the factum of the accident and death of the injured person and the truck belonging to the State Government which was responsible for causing the accident finds place in the f. I. R. A reasonable inference can be drawn that from the very inception the involvement of Government truck in the accident has been alleged. Although the registration number of the truck does not find place in the F. I. R. but nonetheless it states that the said registration number is known to the eye-witnesses of the accident who were not present at the time of lodging of the F. I. R. This conduct of the informant is very natural and cannot, for a moment, be said to be cooked up, specially keeping in mind thatthebrotherof the informant who was otherwise hale and hearty received fatal injuries in the accident and throughout the previous night the informant was busy and in attendance of the patient (the injured person)who was fighting with death and died ultimately. There was hardly any time to find out the registration number of the government vehicle (Sarkari thela) which caused the accident. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the appellants invited attention of the Court to the case of Superintendent of Police, C. B. I, and others v. Japan Kumar Singh, wherein it has been laid down by the Apex Court that a first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. An informant may not be an eye-witness and he may not know the name of the victim or his assailant. He may not know how the occurrence took place. In the case on hand, the injured having died, the first information report could have been lodged only by a person who had come to know about the occurrence i. e. the accident. The relevant paragraph 20 is reproduced below: