RANI DEVI Vs. NARENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation for death of a male aged 28 years who was alleged to have died in a motor accident. The deceased was a Constable and the contention on behalf of the claimants was that he was on his duty managing traffic when a Matador hit against him and sped away. The FIR had been lodged against the driver but the Tribunal reasoned that the non -examination of the author of the FIR was material and that the claimants had withheld material evidence. An adverse inference has been drawn against the claimants and the Tribunal dismissed the petition.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the accident had taken place on 15.02.1994 and the FIR was lodged on the same day on the basis of statement of one Nanu Ram. He was also a Police Constable manning the traffic at the road circle. The recital that the FIR reveals is that he along with deceased Suresh Kumar were standing on the left side of the road to check the vehicles coming from the side of Hansi Road and he had directed the deceased Suresh to stop a particular vehicle coming from the side of Hansi road. He stated that a Matador bearing No.DL -2CD - 7864 came at a fast speed and even when the deceased was giving a signal to stop the vehicle, the driver hit him which resulted in the deceased falling on the road and coming by grievous injuries in his right thigh and also on the hip joint. When he was taking care of the Constable Suresh Kumar, the Constable on duty on Jind side gave a signal to stop the vehicle but the driver of the Matador took the vehicle about 50 to 55 paces ahead from the spot and stopped the vehicle and ran towards the fields. The driver had thus given a hot chase but he escaped from the place without being caught. The complainant said that he could identify the driver if he was produced. I do not find anything suspicious about the FIR which was registered soon after the accident. If the vehicle had been stopped there and the driver could not be caught even the identify of the driver was not known, the identity of the vehicle was sufficient to cast the liability against the owner and the insurer. I cannot find anything amiss from the evidence placed before the Tribunal and I do not think that there had been any cause for reasoning that there was any suppression of material facts. The owner of the Matador van was perhaps the most competent person to speak about the involvement of the vehicle and also place the driver before the Tribunal. If there was a doubt that there was collusion between the owner and the claimants and that the owner had only colluded the claimants then it should have been possible for the insurer to elicit such fact by calling upon the driver and owner to share the details of the involvement or otherwise of the vehicle. If the insurance company would not take any steps to gather information about accident which was stated against the driver of the insured vehicle, I cannot allow for an inference of collusion or make any adverse inference against the claimants. The dismissal of the petition is, in my view, grossly unjust. On the other hand, the Tribunal must have seen the non -examination of the driver or owner or any evidence on the side of the insured to speak about the collision as material. In this case that was sufficient to uphold the claim of the claimants.

(3.) MULTIPLICAND (annualized by 52,434 multiplying 12)