Allahabad High Court
Smt. Ranchi & Others vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd & Others on 19 August, 2015
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-Ii
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 719 of 2005
Appellant :- Smt. Ranchi & Others
Respondent :- Oriental Insurance Co Ltd & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Rishikesh Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- Amresh Sinha
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II,J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants- respondents challenging the judgment and award dated 6.12.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Banda in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 135/70 of 2002 (Smt. Ranchi and others Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others) dismissing the claim petition of the claimants-appellants.
2. The appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the accident took place on 14.7.2002 in the broad day light at about 3:00 P.M. in which deceased-Gore Lal, a young man of 22 years was cushed to death by the Bus No. C.P.V. 6901. The incident was seen by the witness Kunnoo (P.W.2) and FIR of the same was also registered by Bhola- father of the deceased promptly on the same day at 4:30 P.M. at Police Station Bisanda mentioning the Bus No. C.P.V. 6901. Subsequently, the charge sheet was also filed. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the Accident, caused by Bus No. C.P.V. 6901, has not been proved.
3. In the grounds of appeal it was also asserted that finding recorded by the Tribunal was contrary to the factual assertions as well as the pleadings of the claimants. It was also asserted that findings recorded by the Tribunal are arbitrary and, therefore, the appeal should be allowed and the order dated 6.12.2004 passed by learned Tribunal should be set aside.
4. We have heard Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants, though the name of Sri Amresh Sinha, Advocate has been shown in the cause list. On the record, it appears that he has been representing the insurance company. But Sri Anubhav Sinha, Advocate stated that Sri Amresh Sinha is not appearing in this matter. No other counsel has appeared for any of the respondents. We proceed to decide this case.
5. It is contended that claim of the appellants has been rejected by the Tribunal only on the ground that it could not be approved that Bus No. C.P.V. 6901 has caused accident.
6. A perusal of the record indicates that the Claim Petition No. 135/70 of 2002 was filed by the claimants against the Insurance Company and others with the allegation that on 14.7.2002 at about 3:00 P.M. the deceased-Gore Lal, a young man of 22 years was coming back to village Kairi on his bicycle and then he was crushed by Bus No. C.P.V. 6901, which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the offending vehicle. The accident was seen by several witnesses and the report was lodged at the Police Station Bisanda on the same day. The deceased was a skilled worker and, therefore, a claim petition was filed.
7. The opposite party no.1 denied the assertion and alleged that claimants are not entitled to receive any compensation. Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 alleged the negligence of the deceased himself and alleged that if any liability regarding compensation has to be fastened, then Insurance Company is liable for the same.
8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following four issues were framed:
(i) Whether on 14.7.2002 at about 3:00 P.M. near Banda Tank on Bisanda Road, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Banda, Gore Lal died by Bus No. C.P.V. 6901, if so, its effect?
(ii) Whether at the time of accident all the papers like driving licence and insurance policy etc. were valid and effective ?
(iii) Whether the vehicle was being driven in terms and conditions of insurance policy?
(iv) To what amount the petitioner is entitled and and from which of the parties?
9. It is contended by learned counsel for appellants that the Tribunal has found that Bus No. C.P.V. 6901 was not involved in the accident. Admittedly, FIR of the accident was lodged and even charge sheet was filed. One of the witnesses has alleged himself to be the eye witness of the incident. There is nothing on the record to indicate that accident has taken place involving the Bus No. C.P.V. 6901.
10. Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in their written statement alleged the negligence of deceased himself. There is no specific denial of the accident. There is nothing on record as to why the learned Tribunal did not consider any compensation under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act. He has further submitted that accident took place on 14.7.2002 in the broad day light at about 3:00 P.M. in which deceased-Gore Lal, a young man of 22 years was cushed to death by the Bus No. C.P.V. 6901. The FIR was lodged promptly on the same day.
11. The learned Tribunal refused to grant any compensation on the ground that the accident is not proved.
12. Admittedly, the claim petition has been dismissed as it has not been found by the Tribunal that Bus No. C.P.V. 6901 is involved in the accident. It will appear that the accident took place on 14.7.2002 at about 3:00 P.M., while the FIR was lodged on the same day at 16:30 P.M. being Crime No. 127/02 under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 I.P.C. As the FIR contains the bus number and also contains the factum of residence and negligence of the driver of the bus in question. FIR has been promptly lodged, so in fact, there was no time for manipulations. After FIR, investigation was conducted and charge sheet was submitted involving bus number in question. Learned Tribunal simply held that some other vehicle was involved in the accident and there is no proof that Bus No. C.P.V. 6901 was involved in the accident. In what manner, this conclusion has been drawn, it is not clear. The sole finding of the Tribunal is that Bhola and Kunnu have not been examined.
13. We have gone through the finding recorded by the Tribunal and it is clear that no witness was examined from the side of respondents. Why the factum of charge sheet was not believed by the Tribunal or why the FIR was not believed, it is not very clear. We are of the view that the finding, which has been recorded by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is not a case, where it can be said that number of the vehicle was not mentioned in the FIR, which was promptly lodged. Therefore, finding of the Tribunal on issue no.1 requires reconsideration by the Tribunal in the light of oral and documentary evidence available on record. The finding of issue no.1 has affected the finding of other issues resulting into the dismissal of the claim petition.
14. Therefore, we are of the view that matter requires reconsideration afresh by the Tribunal on all aspects of the matter.
15. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Appeal is allowed and the order dated 6.12.2014 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide the claim of appellants on other issues.
Order Date :- 19.8.2015
Ashish Pd.
