Bombay High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Sayed Nazema Rafiq And Ors on 24 August, 2016
Bench: A.V. Nirgude
1 FA 53/1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 53 OF 1999
1 Union of India APPELLANTS
2 The Commandant, A.C. Centre & School,
Ahmednagar Camp, Ahmednagar
V E R S U S
1 Sayed Nazema Rafiq, Aged 22 Years, RESPONDENTS
Occupation Household
2 Sayed Humera Rafiq, Aged 5 Years, Minor,
Through her legal guardian mother
Respondent No. 1, Occupation Education
3 Sayed Moinoddin Abdul Karim, Aged 60 Appeal abated as
Years, Occupation Nil against Respondent
No.3 vide Court's Order
dated 01.07.2008
4 Sayed Shahnoor Moinoddin, Aged 50 ears, As per Court's Order
dated 31.07.2014 -
Occupation Household,
dismissed
All Resident of Fakirwada, Aurangabad
Road, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar
5 SWR Surjit Singh, Army No. 1080227, A.C.
Records, Inside Ahmednagar Fort,
Ahmednagar
Mr. D.G. Nagode, Advocate, holding for
Mr. Pradeep Deshmukh, Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. B.S. Shinde, Advocate, holding for
Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:32:55 :::
2 FA 53/1999
Appeal abated as against Respondent No. 3
Appeal dismissed as against Respondent No. 4
Respondent No. 5 served
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J.
DATE : 24th August, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This Appeal challenges Judgment and Award dated 1st July,
1998, passed by the learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Ahmednagar, in M.A.C. Application No. 98 of 1991.
2. The original respondent - Union of India has filed this appeal.
Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were the original claimants before the Tribunal.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were siblings of deceased Rafiq, whereas
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are his parents. There is no dispute about the
fact that Rafiq died in a vehicle accident on a public road near
Ahmednagar. The respondents asserted that Rafiq died due to accident
caused by the Army vehicle bearing No.86-D-62971M. On the other hand,
the appellant opposed the application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal
took-up a specific stand that the vehicle mentioned above was not at all
concerned with the incident. The learned Member of the Tribunal held on
facts that the vehicle in question was indeed involved in the accident. The
learned counsel for the appellant asserted that this finding is incorrect.
The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that there was
considerable delay in lodging of the complaint of the incident with police.
He pointed out that there was about 48 hours delay in approaching the
police. He therefore suggested that the lodging of the complaint itself
would be a concoction. Secondly he pointed out that the appellant tried to
3 FA 53/1999
prove that the vehicle in question on the relevant day was not in use on
public road as per the Army record. He also invited my attention to the
Army record which was brought before the Court. However, I am not
inclined to disturb the finding of the lower Court. The learned Member of
the Tribunal discussed this issue between the parties quite elaborately in
his Judgment. He observed that there were as many as three eye
witnesses, who came before the Court and deposed that the above
mentioned Army vehicle was involved in the incident. Except the delay in
recording of the First Information Report, there is no other reason why the
depositions of three eye witnesses should be discarded. The learned
counsel for the appellant also contended that all the three eye witnesses
did not actually seen the incident. They admittedly reached the spot only
after the accident which already took place. This submission is devoid of
merit. The witnesses stated that soon after the accident, they noticed that
the vehicle in question stopped for a while and then left the spot
apprehending mob reaction. All the three eye witnesses mentioned the
registration number of the vehicle.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant then tried to suggest that
the respondents' witnesses and record would not lie. He also pointed out
that Military Officers are worthy of reliance. I am not really concerned with
this submission. If the depositions of the respondents' witnesses are
believed then the plea of alibi would fade into significance even without
recording that the appellants' witnesses are not believable. The evidence
can be appreciated in favour of the respondents - applicants. The appeal
should therefore fail. Appeal stands dismissed.
4 FA 53/1999
4. The amount deposited in the Court alongwith interest etc.
should be handed over to the respondents. If that is not sufficient to make
the Award, the remaining amount shall be recovered as per the Award.
5. In view of disposal of the First Appeal, Civil Application No.
984 of 1999 stands disposed of.
( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. )
srm/24/8/16
