Jharkhand High Court
Suman Kumari vs Ashok Kumar Roy on 20 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 356 of 2018
Suman Kumari ....... Appellant
Versus
1.Ashok Kumar Roy
2.The Manager, M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
3.Prem Prakash Singh ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
For the Appellant : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents No.2 : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
05/Dated: 20/07/2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
The claimant, Suman Kumari has preferred this Miscellaneous Appeal
against the order dated 28.03.2018, passed by learned Principal District
Judge, Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad, in
Motor Accident Claim Case No.320/2017, whereby the claim application
filed by the claimant, Suman Kumari has been dismissed on the ground that
no material has been brought on the case record to show that the deceased
died due to the injuries caused upon his person in a road accident, occurred
on 16.08.2011, in which two tempos were involved for which Jharia P.S. Case
No.304 of 2011 was instituted and also on the ground, that accident took
place in the year, 2011 while claim application has been brought in the year,
2016.
Learned counsel, Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, appearing for the
appellant has submitted that it appears from the lower court records, that FIR
was filed before Jharia Police Station vide Jharia P.S. Case No.304 of 2011,
dated 16.08.2011, under Section 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC with respect to motor
accident on 16.08.2011, on the basis of fardbeyan of chowkidar 3/1 Chote Lal
Paswan recorded by S.I., Upendra Kumar Mandal of Jharia Police Station.
The informant has stated, that two Tempos bearing registration No.JH-10S-
4982 and JH-10V-2604 collided head-on, due to which passengers of both
tempo sustained injuries and both the tempo were also damaged. The
injureds have been taken to Dhanbad for treatment and both the drivers of
the tempo fled away.
During investigation, it appears that Meghnath Rajak (deceased) was
referred to RIMS, Ranchi and after his death, the fardbeyan of Sujit Kumar,
S/o Late Shyam Lal Rajak was recorded by S.I., Ali Imam Khan of Bariyatu
Police Station, Ranchi on 28.08.2011 at on 10.20 Hours in RIMS, Ranchi,
where Sujit Kumar he has categorically stated that on 16.08.2011 at 03.15 P.M.
his brother-in-law, Meghnath Rajak, aged about 35 years, S/o Mukh Lal
Rajak was going on tempo to Chandankayari for attending Mansa Puja and
at 16.30 Hours, near Basta Kola, gas agency the said tempo collided with
another tempo coming from opposite direction bearing registration No.JH-
10S-4982 due to which he sustained injury and was referred to Central
Hospital, Dhanbad. Subsequently he was referred to RIMS, Ranchi on
17.08.2011 and during treatment, Meghnath Rajak died on 27.08.2011 at 11.55
at night. This fardbeyan was forwarded by S.I. Ali Imam, Bariyatu Police
Station to the Officer-in-charge, Dhanbad District.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that the
investigating officer has recorded the statement of the injured at para 18 of
the case diary on 17.08.2011, but curiously enough while submitting the
chargesheet in the aforesaid case (Jharia P.S. Case No.304 of 2011) vide
chargesheet No.495 of 2011 dated 30.11.2011 under Sections 279, 337 and 427
IPC, the investigating officer namely, Upendra Mandal, ASI and Abdul
Rashid, ASI, have submitted in their report that during investigation no
passenger was found injured and on the basis of that the claim application
has been rejected, which is an apparent error on the face of the record and
such conduct of the police may be deprecated by this Court, as they are not
following principles and the guidelines issue by the Apex Court in the case
of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2010 (2) SCC 607.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that even
though the claim application has been preferred in the year, 2016 for an
occurrence, which has taken place on 16.08.2011, but in view of the
provisions it is not barred under the law of limitation, as under the Motor
Vehicle Act, the limitation has already been amended on 01.07.1989, as such,
this case may be remanded to the court below.
Learned counsel for the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mr. Manish
Kumar has opposed the prayer and submitted that since the learned Tribunal
has given such finding that there is no evidence on record to show that the
deceased died due to the injuries caused in the aforesaid accident, which took
place on 16.08.2011, as such, this Court may not interfere with the impugned
order.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the facts
and circumstances of the case, it appears that the department of police is not
following the principles/guideline laid down by the Apex Court in the case
of Jai Prakash (Supra).
Under the aforesaid circumstances, once the injured has been examined
by the investigating officer at para 18 of the case diary. It has also been
mentioned in the FIR, that all the injured of both tempo were taken to
hospital, it was incumbent upon the Police Officer to verify and submit a
report, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Jai
Prakash (Supra).
Apart from that fardbeyan of Sujit Kumar, was recorded at RIMS,
Ranchi on 28.08.2011 and forwarded to Officer-in-Charge, Dhanbad must
have been received by Dhanbad police and even then the police were
insensitive in such matters, as such, this Court sets aside the impugned order
and remit the matter to the learned Tribunal with a direction to the learned
Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, M.A.C.T., Dhanbad to hold a
meeting with the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad with regard to
the present case i.e. Jharia P.S. Case No.304/2011 and with regard to future
course of action in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the
case of Jai Prakash (Supra).
Since the occurrence is of dated 16.08.2011 it is directed that the learned
Tribunal shall look into the matter expeditiously and dispose of the claim
application within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the
parties.
Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of.
Let the LCR be sent down to the court concerned.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
R.S.
