Branch Manager vs Keshar Yadav
2022 Latest Caselaw 1379 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            M. A. No. 198 of 2010

 Branch Manager, New India Assurance
 Company Limited, Hazaribag                      ....    .... Appellant
                          Versus

1. Keshar Yadav
2. Vivek Kumar Sahal
                                                 ....   ....   Respondents
                          ------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate

C.A.V. ON 23.02.2022 PRONOUNCED ON 07 / 04 / 2022

1. Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment and award of compensation in claim case no.17 of 2005 on the ground that it was not a case of motor vehicle accident, rather the deceased died due to fall from roof.

2. Case of the claimants who are parents is that the deceased Mitlal Yadav on 25.3.2005 when the deceased was returning from Jhumriteliya, he was knocked down by a truck bearing registration No. JH-02D-1891 being driven rashly and negligently resulting in critical injuries. He was first taken for treatment to Parwati Clinic at Jhumriteliya and thereafter was referred for treatment to RIMS Ranchi where he died during the course of treatment. The deceased was 21 years of age and had monthly income of Rs.3000 by working as a cleaner in a truck and also by agriculture.

3. The owner of the vehicle O.P. No.1 appeared and filed the W.S. in which it has been pleaded that the truck bearing registration No. JH-02D-1891 was insured with New India Assurance Company valid from 7.2.2005 to 6.2.2006. Quite interestingly there is no word regarding the accident and there is no specific denial about it. Absence of specific denial can be deemed to be admission on the part of the owner of the vehicle.

4. The Insurance Company O.P. No.2 has contested the claim on the specific ground that the deceased had not died in a motor vehicle accident. As per para 14 of the diary of Jainagar P.S. Case No. 30/05 the fardbeyan of informant and father of the deceased namely Kehar Yadav

was recorded by A.S.I Bariatu P.S Camp R.I.M.S. Ranchi and inquest report dated 27.3.2005 disclosed that deceased Mitlal Yadav died due to fall from the roof of his house on 25.03.05. This fact has been clearly stated by the I.O. of P.S Jainagar in the case diary. Despite this, the charge-sheet has been wrongly submitted under section 279 and 304 (A) of the IPC on the basis of his subsequent statement of informant recorded on 28.03.2005. This aspect has not been considered by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal.

5. Motor Vehicle Act is indisputably a welfare legislation with a solemn object to provide speedy succour and relief to the victims of motor vehicle accident which is increasing exponentially for different reasons like, improving road conditions and increasing traffic and speed on road. Adjudication in a motor vehicle claim tribunal is in the nature of inquiry under Section 169 of the M.V. Act where the Rules of CPC or Evidence Act do not strictly apply. It is the duty of the Tribunal to award just and fair compensation as mandated under Section 168 of the MV Act. Unfortunately lure for more also becomes a driver for some unscrupulous elements to take undue advantage of the beneficial provisions of this Act. The Tribunals have to be on guard against such unmerited claim which come under the garb of motor vehicle accident which has to be considered and decided on well settled principles.

6. Here in the present case the admittedly the accident took place on 25.3.2005 regarding which the first account that has come is from none other but the claimant Keshav Yadav and father of the deceased whose statement was recorded by Fekan Das A.S.I of Bariatu P.S (Ext A/4) on 27.3.2005 at 9.00 hours Nureo surgery ward bed no.48 of Dr. B. K. Singh Unit R/R No.1974 wherein he stated that before the dead body of his son Mit Lal Yadav that on 25.3.2005 in the evening his son was sitting on the roof of the house when he suddenly fell from the roof resulting in serious head injury. He was taken for treatment to Parwati clinic and when his condition did not improve he was brought for treatment to Ranchi. During the course of his treatment he died on 27.3.2005 at 4.30 am. Station diary entry no.768/05 on 27.3.05 by Bariatu P.S and the statement was forwarded to Jayanagar P.S, District Koderma. This has been further corroborated by the letter of investigator Basant Lal vide his letter

no.01/RIMS/2008 addressed to the Regional manager of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Ext A-3).

7. Case of the claimant takes a U-turn on 29.3.2005 when Koderma P.S case no. 30/05 is registered under sections 279/304 A of the I.P.C (Ext-1) against the driver of truck No. JH-02 D-1891 on the basis of the statement of Keshar Yadav (claimant) wherein he states that his son Mitlal Yadav was returning from Teliya market on foot, when he was dashed by the said truck resulting in critical head injury. He was taken to RIMs Ranchi for treatment where he died during the course of his treatment. His LTI was taken on a blank sheet of paper by the police and thereafter the postmortem was conducted on the dead body. Police on investigation submitted charge-sheet against driver Suresh Yadav of truck no. JH-02D-1891 (Ext-2). As per the post-mortem report (Ext-3) the death was caused due to head injury which were ante-mortem in nature. The injuries were as follows:

a. Abrasions--2x2 cm on the front of the shoulder, 2x1 cm & 2x1 cm on Rt. cheek, 5x1/2cm left scapular region,4x3 cm and 4x2 cm back of chest left side upper part.

b. Lacerated wound stitched- 5x ½ cm x bone deep left parietal region of head.

c. Internal -- There is diffused contusion of both temproparietal scalp with fracture of both temporoperital bone.

d. The doctor opined that injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance.

8. Coming to the oral evidence the claimant no.1 (P.W.1) has deposed in para 11 of the cross-examination that his statement was not recorded by the police officer from Bariatu. He has denied all about the statement recorded by the Bariatu police wherein he had stated that death had occurred due to fall from roof. It has also been denied that inquest of the dead body was conducted by the Bariatu police. He has further deposed in para 17 that driver Suresh Yadav was his co-villager and lives near the place of occurrence. Claimant no.2 the mother of the deceased in para 12-13 has deposed that at the place of occurrence she was standing. Suresh Yadav was driving the vehicle. She has also all denied about the report being given to the police at Ranchi and has deposed that for the first time the matter was reported to Jaynagar police statement.

9. From the above, it is evident that two contradictory version has come up. The first is that as recorded by the Baraitu police, at RIMS Ranchi immediately after the death on 27.3.2005 on the basis of the statement of the claimant that the deceased died due to fall and the second is that on the basis of the fardbeyan recorded by the police station on 29.3.2005. The testimony of the claimant is not credible as he had completely denied that his statement had ever been recorded by the Baraitu police which has been proved and marked as exhibit A/4. The statement of the claimant was recorded is further proved by para-6 of the deposition of the investigating officer as given in GR 441/05 (Ext-A/1) which was the police case arising of the accident. There is specific mention in this paragraph that the statement of the Keshav Yadav was recorded by the Bariatu police.

10. The claimant Keshav Yadav had an opportunity to explain the contradictory versions, but instead he attempted to completely deny his earlier version as given to the police immediately after the death of his son at the hospital at Bariatu, Ranchi and the inquest conducted there by the Bariatu police. Both these versions are incompatible. Quite surprisingly, the Tribunal brushed aside the earlier statement of the claimant only on the ground that it had not been signed, but had LTI. When the authenticity of the document on the basis of which station diary entry had been made, has been proved by other evidence on record like Ext A/1 an explanation was called for from the claimant regarding the two irreconcilable statements. Bald denial raises serious question on the truthfulness of the later version given four days after the said accident and lends credence to the argument made on behalf of the Insurance Company that the later police case was the product of afterthought and the story was setup to lay claim under MV Act. It is true that the principles of evidence do not strictly apply to motor vehicle claim cases, but it does not mean that in adjudication of claim cases, there is no role of basic and fundamental principles of evidence. Irreconcilable contradiction in the statement of witness which go to the root of the matter, raises serious question on its truthfulness and cannot be accepted blindly. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the later version of death being caused in motor vehicle accident is in complete odds with the first version coming shortly after the death that it was caused by fall from roof

top and is therefore not acceptable. The Tribunal miserably failed to consider these aspects and blindly accepted the claim application and awarded the compensation without assigning cogent reasons for discarding the contrary evidence. Impugned Judgment and award of compensation awarded is not sustainable in eye of law and is accordingly set aside. The Insurance Company is at liberty to recover any amount paid to the claimant.

The appeal is allowed.

The Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the appeal.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 7th April, 2022 AFR / Anit