Chattisgarh High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Sarita Jaiswal And Ors on 24 June, 2024
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21140
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 709 of 2015
National Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch
Manager, Branch Office, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Sarita Jaiswal W/o Late Shri Omprakash Jaiswal Aged
About 50 Years, R/o Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
2. Amit Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Omprakash Jaiswal Aged About 29
Years, R/o Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
3. Sumit Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Omprakash Jaiswal Aged About 21
Years, R/o Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
4. Harinarayan Singh S/o Babu Singh Rajput Aged About 31 Years
R/o Hadaypur, District - Damoh M.P. (Truck Driver), Through-
Prahlad Trading Company, Kailash Nagar, Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh
5. Prahlad Trading Company, Kailash Nagar, Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh (Owner of Truck No.CG 08 B 1590)
---- Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate
For Respondents 4 & 5 : None
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.
Order on Board
(24.06.2024)
1. This is an insurer appeal challenging the award dated
03.01.2015 passed by 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No.64/2014
awarding a total compensation of Rs.7,11,000/- with interest @
6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in
favour of the claimants for their irreparable loss.
2. The gist of claim before Claims Tribunal was that on 16.03.2009
at about 10:30 p.m., when deceased Omprakash Jaiswal along
with Ramswarup was returning from Higher Secondary School,
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21140
Chhuikhadan on his motorcycle, near village Badhaitola on
Rajnandgaon-Khairagh road, respondent Harinarayan Singh
driving the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration
No.CG 08 B 1590 rashly and negligently dashed his motorcycle,
as a result of which, Omprakash Jaiswal sustained grievous
injures on his body and died during the course of treatment at
Apollo Hospital, Bhilai on 19.03.2009. The claimants
(respondents 1 to 3) who are the wife and children of the
deceased preferred a claim application before the Tribunal
claiming compensation of Rs.30,48,000/-. Learned Claims
Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence available on record,
awarded total compensation of Rs.7,11,000/- with interest @ 6%
per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in
favour of the claimants, against which this appeal has been
preferred by the Insurance Company.
3. The main ground of challenge to the impugned award by the
Insurance Company is that the offending vehicle was not
involved in the accident as on the date of accident the vehicle
was not in Khairagarh but was about 250 Km away from the
place of incident in Korba for carrying Tendu leaves. He further
submits that there is a delay of about 40 days in lodging the FIR
as the incident took place on 16.03.2009 and the FIR was lodged
on 24.04.2009. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in passing the
award holding that the vehicle in question was involved in the
accident. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.
4. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of learned
counsel for respondents 1 to 3 claimants that in the facts and
circumstances of case, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal
is just and proper and requires no interference.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. So far as the main ground of challenge to the impugned award
regarding non-involvement of the offending vehicle in the
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21140
accident is concerned, the Insurance Company has examined
three witnesses namely Rajkumar Netam (NAW-1), Nagin Bhai
(NAW-2) and Saroj Rajput (NAW-3) and has also produced
Ex.D-6 to Ex.D-9 in support of their argument. The main defence
on behalf of the Insurance Company is that as per Ex.P-8 TP,
Tendu Pata was loaded on the offending vehicle from Pali
Godown on 16.03.2009 and as per Toll Post Slip Ex.D-7, the
vehicle left from Korba district on 16.03.2009 at 21.21 p.m. and
as per the seal of Forest Produce Check Post which is behind
Ex.D-8, the offending vehicle reached Rajnandgaon on
17.03.2009 at 7.55 a.m.
7. However, the Tribunal has not believed the evidence of the
Insurance Company as the offending vehicle belongs to Prahlad
Trading Company, the owner of which is not residing in
Rajnandgaon and witness Nagin Bhai (NAW-2) has been given
the power for conducting the affairs of the company. Nagin Bhai
(NAW-2) has stated that the company has many vehicles and no
such Register is maintained in the company as to which truck
went when & where and they came back from where & when and
which driver drove them. This witness has further stated that
Ex.D-6 & D-7 do not bear the signature of any person. Saroj
Rajput (NAW-3) has made similar statement as has been stated
by Nagin Bhai. Saroj Rajput has clearly stated that there is
cancel seal on Ex.D-8 T.P. So the Tribunal has disbelieved on
their evidence and relied on the evidence of the eye witness
Ramswarup who was travelling on the motorcycle along with the
deceased at the time of accident. If the vehicle had actually
passed through that spot, the driver should have told that he had
taken the vehicle and this is the T.P. which was received that
day but the driver has not even been examined.
8. From the evidence it is clear that the statement of injured eye
witness Ramswarup that the accident was caused by the
offending vehicle driven by Harinarayan, could not be refuted.
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21140
The report of the accident was made against driver Harinarayan
and a criminal case is pending against him which also could not
be refuted. Though charge sheet has been filed against the
driver of the offending vehicle, he has not been examined. In
such a situation, it cannot be accepted that the offending vehicle
was not involved in the accident merely on the ground that the
FIR was lodged after about 40 days and the seizure was made
after about two and a half months of the accident. Hence, the
ground of the Insurance Company regarding non-involvement of
the offending vehicle in the accident is not acceptable.
9. So far as the ground of delay in lodging FIR is concerned,
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi v. Badrinarayan &
Ors reported in 2011 LawSuit(SC) 97 while dealing this issue
has held as under:
"20. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR
cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case.
Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we
cannot expect a common man to first rush to the
Police Station immediately after an accident.
Human nature and family responsibilities occupy
the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that
they give more importance to get the victim
treated rather than to rush to the Police Station.
Under such circumstances, they are not
expected to act mechanically with promptitude in
lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging
the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny
justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the courts
are required to examine the evidence with a
closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of
the FIR should also be scrutinized more
carefully. If court finds that there is no indication
of fabrication or it has not been concocted or
engineered to implicate innocent persons then,
even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the
claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that
ground."
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21140
10. In the case of Pawan Kumar and Others v. Satpal Singh
and Others reported in 2022 (4) T.A.C. 10 (S.C.) the Supreme
Court held as under:
"4. The driver and owner of the vehicle are
facing trial which is stated to be pending. The
postmortem report also clearly establishes that
the deceased Subhash Yadav died on account
of the injuries suffered in a motor Vehicular
accident. In light of these admitted facts and in
view of the scope of the powers conferred upon
the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
we fail to understand the logic which prompted
the Tribunal to reject the Claim Petition on the
premise that the factum of death of Subhash
Yadav in the reported accident is not proved.
One of the reasons, namely, the delay in
registration of FIR is a question to be gone into
by the Criminal Court where the driver and
owner of the delinquent vehicle are facing trial.
The Tribunal ought not to have influenced by
these irrelevant considerations. We do not want
to observe anything further as it would amount to
expression of views on merits. Suffice it to say
that the claim of the appellants requires to be
determined on merits and in accordance with
law."
11. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is clear from
the evidence that the accident took place on 16.03.2009. FIR in
this regard was lodged on 24.04.2009 i.e. after about about 40
days of the incident. The eye witness to the accident namely
Ramswarup who was travelling along with the deceased
Omprakash Jaiswal had informed the son of the deceased about
the incident. But at that time, he had not told the vehicle number
to the son of the deceased and after 13-day rituals of the
deceased he told him the vehicle number and after that the FIR
was lodged. Therefore, the delay occurred in lodging the FIR.
Hence, in the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, the ground of delay in lodging the FIR
raised by the Insurance Company also stands negated.
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21140
12. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal is
found to be justified and the same does not require any
interference.
13. Accordingly, the present appeal of the Insurance Company
being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judge
Khatai
