NITESH Vs. SMT. NURI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal in FAO No. 1504 of 2011 is with regard to a claim for injuries and the appeal is FAO No. 2238 of 2011 is with regard to claim for death that had taken place in an accident on 13.10.2006. The deceased was a pillion rider and the injured was said to be driving a motor cycle. In a collision alleged to have taken place involving the truck driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the death had ensued and the driver of the motor cycle had been seriously injured. In the FIR lodged immediately after the accident at the instance of brother of the deceased who admittedly was not an eye witness, it had been stated that there was an unknown vehicle which had caused accident that resulted in death and injuries. At the trial, the evidence was given to the effect that one Tarsem and Sushil had been actually standing near the dead body when the brother of the deceased had arrived and they gave information about the registration number of the vehicle that was involved in the accident and the name of the driver who was said to have driven the vehicle. The Tribunal reasoned that if the information had been passed on by eye witnesses, they would have themselves given the statement to the police giving details of the accident with particulars of the registration number of the vehicle as far as the name of the driver.

(2.) ELSE , the brother of the deceased who was said to have secured that information from two persons claiming to be eye witnesses would have definitely reference about the information that he had secured from two persons Tarsem and Sushil and would have also given the particulars of the registration number of the vehicle and the name of the driver. The fact that the First Information Report merely stated that the accident had been caused by unknown vehicle, the Tribunal reasoned that it merely showed that the so -called eye witnesses Tarsem and Sushil were got up witnesses and they could not have been present at the place of occurrence.

(3.) THE case must only be taken as hit and run incident and the only remedy which the claimants will have, will be to secure the compensation from the fund constituted for the purpose by the State under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act for death and for injury. If such applications are filed, any delay in filing the application shall not be used against them and it shall be taken that the delay has been occasioned on account of prosecution of the case before the Tribunal and this Court. It shall also not be necessary to secure any further proof of the death or injury as resulting from a motor accident. It shall be taken as such.