Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
National Insurance Company ... vs Sanjiv Kumar Singh & Ors on 4 August, 2021
18 04.8.2021 (Via Video Conference)
Sc
F.M.A.T 3719 OF 2016
with
I.A. No. CAN 4 OF 2018
(Old No. CAN 2224 of 2018)
National Insurance Company Limited & Anr.
-Vs.-
Sanjiv Kumar Singh & Ors.
with
COT 79 OF 2014
Sanjiv Kumar Singh & Ors.
-Vs.-
National Insurance Company Limited & Anr.
--------------
Mr. Rajesh Singh
...For the Appellant/
Insurance Company.
Mr. Ali Imam Shah
...For the Respondents/
Claimants in FMAT 3719 of 2016
And
...For the Appellants/
Claimants in COT 79 of 2014
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment
and award dated May 6, 2014 passed by the learned
Judge, Spl. Court cum Additional District Judge cum
Judge MAC Tribunal, Durgapur, Burdwan, in MAC Case
No. 28 of 2013/34 of 2012 on a claim under section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the death of one 52
years old 'Raj Bahadur Singh' in a road accident dated
January 26, 2012.
The appeal has been preferred by the appellant/
Insurance Company, disputing its liability of satisfaction
of award, on the ground that the alleged offending vehicle
was not involved in the accident. The insurer submits
that the 'First Information Report' about the accident was
lodged five days after the accident to help the
respondents/claimants implant the alleged offending
vehicle. The insurer submits that evidence of the eye
witness cannot be relied upon as the said eye witness did
not lodge the FIR with the police authorities.
This court finds that since the seizure list, the
charge sheet and the statement of the eye witness, all
confirm that the alleged offending vehicle was involved in
the accident, insurer's plea of 'non-involvement' of the
alleged offending vehicle is not substantiated at all. The
appellant/Insurance Company did not bring any evidence
to prove its case. The insurer neither exhibited any
document nor produced any witness to show that the
alleged offending vehicle was not involved in the accident.
The owner or the driver of the alleged offending
vehicle does not deny the involvement of their truck in the
accident. Moreover, the judgement of Ravi -Vs-
Badrinarayan & Ors. reported in 2011(1) TAC 867 SC
states that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to
deny justice to the victim. The appeal, accordingly, fails.
The respondents/claimants in the instant appeal
have filed a cross-objection being COT 79 of 2014. The
same is treated to be as on day's list.
Mr. Ali Imam Shah, learned advocate is appearing
on behalf of the appellants/claimants in COT 79 of 2014.
He submits that the appellants/claimants do not wish to
press this appeal.
Accordingly, COT 79 of 2014 is disposed of as not
pressed.
Learned advocate for the insurance company
submits that the insurer has deposited a total sum of
Rs.21,79,527/- before the Registrar General of this Court.
In light of above submissions, the respondents/
claimants shall furnish particulars of their respective
bank accounts with the Registrar General of this Court
within two weeks from date. Upon receipt of such details,
the Registrar General is directed to pay the total
deposited amount along with accrued interest to the
respondents/claimants in accordance with law in the
same manner and proportion as indicated in the award
within a period of four weeks thereafter.
The Registrar General shall check the veracity of
the bank accounts and the identity of the
respondents/claimants before disbursing the amount.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant appeal
being F.M.A. 3719 of 2016 together with the connected
application stand disposed of.
The department concerned is directed to tag the
application, if any, with the main appeal.
There shall be no order as to costs.
The Registry is directed to send down the lower
Court records at once, if received by this time.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of all
formalities, on priority basis.
(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)
