Chattisgarh High Court
Sangeeta Roy vs Ujjawal Kumar on 31 January, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on : 10.11.2022
Judgment delivered on : 31/01/2023
MAC No. 307 of 2019
1. Sangeeta Roy W/o Late Dharmendra Roy Aged About 32 Years
2. Soumya Kumari D/o Late Dharmendra Roy Aged About 3 Years
Minor Represented Through Mother Sangeeta Roy,
3. Kanti Devi W/o Dayashankar Roy Aged About 50 Years
4. Dayashankar Roy S/o Late Shivmangal Roy Aged About 60
Years
All are R/o Village Bharpurwa Police Station - Kudhni, District -
Kaimur Bhamua (Bihar), At Present R/o Ramashankar Singh,
Behind Vivekanand School, Bishrampur, Post And Police Station
- Bishrampur, Tahsil And District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
claimants
Versus
1. Ujjawal Kumar S/o I. Sharma Aged About 23 Years R/o Of
Urjanagar Colony, Jarhi Quarter No. M/161, Police Station -
Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ---(Driver)
2. E. Sharma S/o Late Kamal Sharma Aged About 58 Years R/o
Urjanagar Colony, Jarhi, Quarter No. M/161, Police Station -
Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ---(Owner)
3. The Branch Manager Ifco Tokyo General Insurance Company
Limited, 205 Second Floor, M.M.-1, Silver Plaza In Front Of
Udyog Bhawan, Near Siding Office, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur
Chhattisgarh. ---(Insurer)
---- Respondents
For Appellants : Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Shri Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2 : None though served.
For Respondent No.3 : Shri PR Patankar, Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
CAV Judgment
01. The claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 26.11.2018 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur in Claim Case No.33/2017
whereby the claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act has been dismissed.
02. As per claim petition, on 23.1.2017 at around 5.15 pm while
Dharmendra Roy was going on foot, respondent No.1 riding motorcycle
bearing registration No. CG 15 DB 1823, which was owned by
respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, in rash and
negligent manner, dashed Dharmendra Roy as a result of which
Dharmendra Roy suffered injuries on various parts of his body and
succumbed to the same during treatment in Dr. Ambedkar Hospital,
Raipur on 28.1.2017.
03. On claim petition being filed by the claimants who are widow,
minor daughter and parents of the deceased Dharmendra Roy under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal considering the
evidence led by both the parties held that the claimants have failed to
prove that respondent No.1 caused the accident while riding the said
motorcycle and as such, dismissed their claim petition.
04. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the
Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim petition in the face of
pleadings of the claimants and the evidence adduced in support
thereof. The evidence on record clearly shows negligence on the part
of respondent No.1 while riding the offending vehicle motorcycle which
resulted in grievous injuries to the deceased leading to his death. The
Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and therefore, the Tribunal
should have enquired into the matter and awarded suitable
compensation in favour of the claimants.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the matter of Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation and others reported in (2020) 13 SCC 486.
05. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1 and 3 supporting the impugned award submitted that the Tribunal
considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, the nature and
quality of evidence adduced by the parties, has rightly dismissed the
claim petition which warrants no interference by this Court.
06. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
07. Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that
the claimants did not prove this fact that the offending vehicle was
being ridden by respondent No.1 at the time of accident. The claimants
filed certified copy of the final report in criminal case against
respondent No.1 Ujjawal Kumar i.e. Ex.P/1 which shows that after
investigation, final report was filed against respondent No.1 for the
offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.
08. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita and others
(supra) observed in paras 27 & 28 as under:
"27. The Tribunal's reliance upon FIR 247/2011 (Ext. 1)
and chargesheet (Ext. 2) also cannot be faulted as these
documents indicate the complicity of Respondent No.2.
The FIR and chargesheet, coupled with the other
evidence on record, inarguably establishes the
occurrence of the fatal accident and also point towards
the negligence of the Respondent No.2 in causing the
said accident. Even if the final outcome of the criminal
proceedings against Respondent No.2 is unknown, the
same would make no difference at least for the purposes
of deciding the claim petition under the Act. This Court in
Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5
SCC 656, noted that the nature of proof required to
establish culpability under criminal law is far higher than
the standard required under the law of torts to create
liability.
28. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in upholding the
finding recorded by the Tribunal that there was an
accident on 28102011 at around 7 a.m. between the
motorcycle driven by Sitaram bearing registration number
RJ 25 SA 6923 and a bus belonging to respondent No.1.
(the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation)
bearing registration number RJ26/P.A. 0042 coming from
the opposite direction and being driven rashly and
negligently by respondent No.2, which resulted in the
death of Sitaram."
09. In the present case also, after investigation, the police filed final
report of Ex.P/1 against respondent No.1 under Sections 279 and
304A of IPC. This apart, respondent No.1 did not appear before the
Tribunal and did not deny this fact that he was facing criminal trial.
However, the Tribunal did not appreciate all these facts and dismissed
the claim petition summarily. Therefore, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case in light of the aforesaid judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned award is liable to be set aside
and the matter deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal for deciding
the claim case afresh.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is
hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for deciding
the claim case afresh on the basis of material available on record, in
particular the final report (Ex.P/1) of the criminal case and the
depositions of AWs-1, 2 & 3 in accordance with law, as expeditiously
as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of first
appearance of the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the
concerned Tribunal on 20th February, 2023.
Record of the Tribunal be sent back to it forthwith.
sd/
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
Khan
