RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD Vs. VIJAY CHAUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment dated 23.5.1997 passed by the claims Tribunal -cum -1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chatra in accident claim case No. 278/92 whereby and whereunder the claim Tribunal has dismissed the said claim case of the claimants,

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in Narrow Compass. Claimants who are parents of the deceased Sanjay Kumar filed a claim case bearing No. 278/92 stating therein that Sanjay Kumar was travelling on 3rd June 1992 by a Matador vehicle bearing registration No. BR -2 -6018 from Dovi to Hunterganj. The vehicle was being driven very rashly and negligently and when the vehicle reached near village Nagar on Dovi Chatra Pucca Road at about 10.30 a.m., the vehicle met with an accident which caused serious injuries to Sanjay Kumar and he was taken to Hunterganj Hospital for treatment but the medical officer of the hospital referred him to Sadar Hospital, Gaya for treatment and on the way, he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased Sanjay Kumar was brilliant student of IA and was also engaged in part -time cultivation and tuition and from these sources, he used to earn Rs. 2,000/ - per month and thus, he was the earning member of the family. The vehicle in question was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited, Gaya, since deceased was the earning member of the family, his death caused pecuniary loss to the family and therefore, three lakh of compensation was claimed in the claim petition. The owner and insurer of the vehicle appeared and filed separate written statements denying the facts contained in claim petition and stating therein that, in fact, no accident has ever been taken place by the vehicle on the alleged date and time and place of occurrence. It was also denied that deceased Sanjay Kumar was not travelling by this vehicle neither any accident as alleged took place by the said vehicle nor Sanjay Kumar died due to the accident. According to the case of the O.P.s, the Metador vehicle bearing registration No. BR -2 -6018 never met with an accident and claimants have falsely lodged an FIR in Hunterganj Police Station bearing Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 23/92 as State v. Driver under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC on 3.6.1998 at 10.30 a.m.

(3.) WE have gone through the lower Court records and perused the exhibits and deposition of the witnesses. On perusal of these papers, FIR etc. it appears that FIR was lodged on 3.6.1992 at 11.10 a.m. by one Chowkidar Lakhan Paswan for the accident occurred on dated 3.6.1992 at 10.30 a.m. in which it is categorically mentioned that a Matador bearing registration No. BR -2 -6018 coming from Dovi with passengers was going towards Hunterganj, met with an accident, as a result of which, two passenger sustained serious injuries. On the basis of this FIR, the Hunterganj police took up investigation and submitted a charge - sheet against the driver Bali Ram Choubey alias Bali Choubey under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC. Contention of the learned claims Tribunal is that the post mortem report is not on the record as no post mortem was done on the body of Sanjay Kumar which goes to show that he did not die due to accident caused by any vehicle but we are of the view that claims Tribunal has not given a correct finding on this point because even before the IO, there was no post mortem report of the deceased Sanjay Kumar, Still, after investigation, IO submitted a charge - sheet in the case. Submission of charge -sheet show that IO after due investigation, found prima facie case that such accident occurred by the vehicle and some person died due to the very accident and therefore, learned Claims Tribunal did not consider this aspect of the fact and came to a wrong finding. Submission of charge -sheet in pursuant to the lodging of FIR proves that the accident as aforesaid had taken place at the P.O. in which Sanjay Kumar died and the accident took place by the vehicle bearing registration No. BR -2 -6018 and Sanjay Kumar died as a result of the accident. Witnesses, who have been examined, have given their versions of the accident and there should be some discrepancy in their evidence but their evidence cannot be altogether discarded as tutored or on any other ground and those witnesses have stated about the accident said to have taken place by the Matador vehicle bearing aforesaid registration No. In this connection, documents filed on behalf of defence respondents insurer are also very important. From perusal of exhibits -A, it appears that an inquiry was entrusted by the Insurance Company and the inquiry report reveals that the vehicle bearing registration No. BR -2 -6018 met with an accident on 3.6.1992 at about 2.00 p.m. near Hunterganj Police Station and the nature of body was Maxi Matador. Ex -hibit -B shows that claim for O.D. damage claimed by the owner of the Matador vehicle BR -2 -6018 was refused not on the ground that no such accident taken place but because the vehicle was being driven by the driver having no valid licence. Exhibit -A more or less admits the claim of the claimants that the accident by the vehicle took place at about the place though there is some variation in the time of accident in Exhibit -A but when an FIR (5) was lodged at about 11.00 a.m. on 3.6.1997 goes to show that accident has actually taken place on that very day, and at about that time. From the aforesaid facts, it stands clear that the accident took place by vehicle in question at about 10.30 a.m. on 3.6.1992 near the Police Station. So far as discrepancy in the registration of vehicle is concerned, it is BRZ -6018 according to the Insurance Company whereas as per FIR, it is BR -2 -6018 and figure 2 and word Z are such that more or less, they resemble each other if not properly written and therefore, this is not a major mistake. Figure 2 may be read as 2 if not properly written and similarly, word Z may be read as 2 if not clearly written and therefore, this is not a major mistake.