ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. SURTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal, is, directed by the insurer of the offending vehicle, against, the impugned award, rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P (for short "MACT), upon, MAC Petition No. 96-MAC/2 of 2014, (a) wherethrough, hence compensation amount borne, in a sum of Rs.20,36,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, commencing from the date of the impugned award, till its realization, stood in toto assessed, as, compensation, vis-a-vis, the dependents of deceased one Ram Pal, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability was fastened, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant, has, with much vigour, contended before this Court, that, the learned MACT concerned, has untenably irrevered the factum, of, non-echoing(s) in the FIR, embodied in Ex. RW-1/A, and, as stood lodged with respect, to, the relevant occurrence, vis-a-vis, the color, and, description, of, the offending vehicle. (a) and, has also untenably irrevered the enunciation(s) borne in the apt final report comprised in Ex. RW-1/B, filed by the Investigating Officer concerned, before the learned Trial Magistrate concerned, with, voicings therein, vis-a-vis, for want of evidence, (b) hence suggestive of the involvement of the offending vehicle concerned, in the relevant collision, which purportedly occurred, at the relevant time, inter-se, the motor cycle driven, by the deceased, and, the offending vehicle driven by its driver, rather thereupon constraining him, to, file an untraced report. He also proceeds to contend that the deference meted, by the learned MACT concerned, to, the testification rendered, by an ocular witness of the occurrence, who stepped into the witness box, as, PW-3 being also likewise frail, (i) as, the color of the offending vehicle mentioned by him, in his testification, stands echoed, as "white", whereas, the, registration certificate appertaining, to, the offending vehicle discloses its color to be "silver Grey".

(3.) However, for all the reasons, to be assigned hereinafter, the afore submission(s), cannot, be accepted by this Court, as, the non-echoing in the FIR borne in RW-1/A, as stood lodged, with respect to the relevant occurrence, vis-a-vis, the type, number, and, description of the offending vehicle concerned, and, also, in, subsequent thereto rather in tandem therewith, the apposite final report, borne in Ex.RW-1/B, rather not overruling the testification, of PW-3 (Shri Naresh Kumar), an ocular witness, to the occurrence, (a) nor, the latter's testification hence making pointed echoings, vis-a-vis, the tort of negligence, hence being committed by the driver of the offending vehicle, also is obviously rather not discardable, (b) as, the learned MACT in meteing deference to his testification, has, acted within the domain of its jurisdiction, hence permitting it, to receive testifications of an ocular witness, to the occurrence, dehors, the FIR as well as the untraced report not disclosing, the type and description, of the offending vehicle. Conspicuously, also when even upon, a, verdict, of, acquittal standing pronounced upon the accused, also being rather not a sufficient piece of evidence, to, discard, credible ocular account, vis-a-vis, the occurrence, whereupon the testification of PW-3, an ocular witness to the occurrence, cannot be discarded. Even if PW-3, has made a mis-description, vis-a-vis, the color of the offending vehicle, however, the afore mis-description, is to be construed, to ensue from the immense delay, which occurred, inter-se, the happening of, the relevant mishap, and, his testification being recorded, before the Court concerned, (c) besides when he evidently holds his abode in proximity to the location, whereat, the relevant accident took place, in aftermath, the afore submission addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel, for the appellant addressed before this Court, is rejected.