UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. FOREST DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four appeals arise out of an award declared by the Presiding Officer of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao, in Claim Petition Nos. 127 of 1982 and 128 of 1982. Since these two claim petitions arose out of the same incident, it is convenient to dispose of all four appeals by a common judgment. First Appeal Nos. 30 of 1987 and 31 of 1987 are filed by the insurance company while the remaining two appeals are preferred by the driver, the owner and the alleged transferee of a pick -up van bearing registration No. GDZ 5642. The facts leading to the filing of the two claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal are as follows: K.M. Godinho was working as Range Forest Officer and on June 16, 1982 he went on patrolling duty along with his staff members Raghoba Naik and Anil Haldonkar. The patrolling party left, moving in a forest area, in a truck bearing registration No. GDL 9872 of the Forest Department and the truck was being driven by Harshad Parikh. The patrolling party had covered several check -posts and by 1.00 a.m. on June 17,, 1982, were at Tilamol check -post. At that time, one Laximan Naik who was the Security Guard at Tilamol check -post saw one pickup van bearing registration No. GDZ 5642 passing Tilamol check -post from Rivona to Margao without slowing down. The pick -up van was driven by Bhiku Gaonkar. The patrolling party felt suspicious as the pickup van speeded up at the check -post and the patrolling party decided to chase the pickup van in which timber logs and contraband articles were carried. Noticing that the patrolling party was chasing the pick -up van, the driver of the van started driving zigzag and prevented the truck of the patrolling party from coming towards the van. After certain distance when the patrolling party reached near the village Sirlim, the two occupants of the pick -up van threw a wooden log from the pick -up van on the road with a view to obstruct the patrolling party from overtaking the van. The driver of the Forest Department truck avoided the log and proceeded further. After some distance, a second log was thrown but the driver of the truck bypassed that log and continued the chase. At a later stage, a third log was thrown and though the truck driver tried to avoid the log the rear tyre of the truck dashed against the log and the shaft on the rear side along with the tyre was separated from the truck with the result that the truck turned turtle and fell in the field nearby. The truck was severely damaged and Godinho suffered serious injuries. The other occupants of the truck also received some minor injuries. The pick -up van then disappeared from the scene. Godinho was removed in a semi -conscious condition and taken to Hospicio Hospital at Margao, and thereafter, transferred to the Goa Medical College at Panaji. Godinho was required to remain in the hospital for a considerable length of time.

(2.) THE officer of the Forest Department lodged criminal complaint at the police station and the police raided the residence of driver Gaonkar who produced the pick -up van on the next day at the police station. The police called panchas and a panchanama was prepared in respect of the logs thrown from the pick -up van at various points during the chase. A panchanama was also prepared in respect of the truck lying in the field. The driver was then prosecuted. During the investigation, it was noticed that the pick -up van was registered with the R.T.O. in the name of one Bandodkar. It was also disclosed that the pick -up van was in possession of one Volvotkar and Volvotkar had engaged driver Gaonkar to drive the pick -up van. The forest authorities ascertained what would be the expenses for repairs of the damaged truck and the damages were assessed by one Luis who was working as automobile engineer with M/s. M.V. Naik who is an authorised agent of Tata -Mercedez trucks. The estimated costs of repairs were about Rs. 85,000/ - and that being a very large amount the Forest Department decided not to effect the repairs but decided to dispose of the truck as scrap material.

(3.) FIRST we will deal with appeal Nos. 50 of 1987 and 51 of 1987 filed by the driver Gaonkar, owner Bandodkar and the alleged transferee Volvotkar of pick -up van GDZ 5642. The first contention urged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the driver, owner and the transferee is that the Tribunal was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the pick -up van was involved in the incident and that the pick -up van was driven by driver Gaonkar. It is not possible to accede to the submission of the learned counsel that the pick -up van during the relevant time was lying in the garage of one Naik and therefore could not be involved in the incident. Before adverting to the evidence led by the driver and the owner on this issue it is advantageous to refer to the evidence led on behalf of the claimants as regards the involvement of the pick -up van. As mentioned earlier, the pick -up van was initially noticed at Tilamol check -post by guard Laximan Naik who was examined at Exh. 24 in Claim Petition No. 128 of 1982. The evidence of this witness leaves no manner of doubt that at 9.00 a.m. on June 16, 1982 he was posted at Tilamol check -post and while on duty the witness noticed that the pick -up van passed the check -post without halting, The manner in which the pick -up van was driven made the guard suspicious. The guard deposed in the witness -box that he noticed that the pick -up van was driven by Bhiku Gaonkar. The cross -examination of this witness does not reveal that the statement made by the witness is not truthful. The claimant also examined in the Claim Petition No. 128 of 1982 the Forest Range Officer Godinho at Exh. 20 and Laximan Naik (Exh. 24) who was a member of the staff proceeding in the cabin of the Forest Department truck. The claimant also examined Harshad Parikh (Exh. 25) who was the driver of the Forest Department truck. All these three witnesses deposed that after the pick -up van left Tilamol check -post towards Margao, the patrolling party decided to chase them and while chasing they noticed the registration number of the van as well as the fact that it was driven by Bhiku Gaonkar. The three witnesses deposed that there were about four labourers or occupants of the pickup van and after realising that the van was chased by the patrolling party two of the occupants left the cabin and came on the rear side of the van and threw away the logs on the road to create obstruction in the chase by the patrolling party. The chase went on for a considerable length of time and the three witnesses had ample time not only to see the registration number of the van but also to identify the driver. The Tribunal accepted the testimony of these three witnesses and we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal that the evidence of the patrolling party and the Security Guard at Tilamol check -post is reliable. In addition to the testimony of these witnesses the claimants examined Raul Pereira who is resident in a house situated on Margao -Chinchinim Road. The truck of the Forest Department fell in a field near about 5 metres from his house. Pereira (Exh. 30) deposed that at the relevant time, he was awake due to illness of his son, and heard a big noise and coming out of the house found that a truck was lying in the field while a pick -up van was parked somewhere nearby. Raul Pereira noticed the registration number of the pick -up van. The claimants also examined one Fernandes (Exh. 31) who was nearby at the relevant time. This witness also supported the claim that the pick -up van GDZ 5642 was parked on the road at the relevant time. There is nothing in the testimony of these two witnesses who are independent and who have no grudge against the respondents, to discard their testimony. In our view, the Tribunal was right in accepting the evidence and concluding that the pick -up van GDZ 5642 was involved in the incident and was driven by Gaonkar. In addition to these witnesses, there are various circumstances to indicate that the claim made by the claimants about the involvement of the pickup van in the incident is true. The immediate conduct of the patrolling party in lodging the complaint at the police station and disclosing the fact that the pick -up van was involved in the incident and was driven by Gaonkar establishes the claim. The witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants have deposed truthfully. The claimants were unlikely to falsely implicate the driver of the pick -up van and their immediate conduct in lodging of complaint at the police station speaks volumes. In our judgment, the finding of the Tribunal about the involvement of the pick -up van and of the driver cannot be faulted with.