Jharkhand High Court
Kinu Rout @ Kinu Rai vs Died (Expunged) on 20 September, 2022
1
M.A. No. 85 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.85 of 2013
------
Kinu Rout @ Kinu Rai, son of late Kartik Rout, Resident of Bhabhandiha,
P.O., P.S. Jarmundi, Dist. Dumka
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Died (expunged)
2. Bechni Devi widow of Hari Prasad Rai (deceased)
3. Madan Rai
4. Bibhishan Rai
5. Manikant Rai
Sl. No.3 to 5 are sons of late Hari Prasad Rai.
All resident of Chamrabahiyar, P.O. & P.S. Jarmundi, Dist. Dumka
.... .... .... Respondents
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashish Jha, Advocate
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the award dated 11.03.2013
passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, in Title Claim Case
No.77 of 2011 whereby and where under, the learned Tribunal has
awarded the interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants
under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased- Hari Prasad
Rai was dashed by the vehicle of the appellant- owner of the vehicle
and was crushed by it resulting in his death. The First Information
Report has been lodged and after investigation, police has submitted
charge sheet wherein, it has been mentioned by the police that the
deceased died in an accident caused by the offending tractor in
bearing registration no. JH-04E-1573.
M.A. No. 85 of 2013
4. Mr. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence in
the record in its proper perspective and the learned Tribunal ought to
have held that it is a hit and run accident where the identification of
the vehicle could not be ascertained. Mr. Kumar, next relies upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Sri Vidya Sagar
Singh vs. Shanti Devi & Ors. reported in 1994 (2) PLJR 820 wherein,
in the facts of that case where the Claims Tribunal passed an order of
interim compensation to the claimants on the basis of the statement of
witnesses recorded in course of investigation of the police case
without holding any enquiry as to which of the buses was in fact
involved in the accident, the Patna High Court set aside the said order
and Mr. Kumar submits that as the appellant- owner of the vehicle
disputes that his vehicle was not involved in the accident, the learned
Tribunal ought not have allowed the application under Section 140 of
the Motor Vehicle Act.
5. Mr. Ashish Jha, learned counsel for the respondents on the
other hand defends the impugned award and submits that the First
Information Report as well as the charge sheet which was submitted
after investigation of the case by police before the court concerned
goes to show that the vehicle owned by the appellant was involved in
the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased- Hari Prasad
Rai. It is next submitted that it is undisputed that the certificate of
registration of the vehicle concerned bearing registration no. JH-04E-
1573 also stands recorded in the office of District Transport Officer in
the name of the appellant. Hence, the plea of the appellant that his
M.A. No. 85 of 2013
said vehicle was not involved in accident has no legs to stand in view
of the overwhelming material in the record to the contrary. It is lastly
submitted that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after
going through the materials in the record, the sole point for
determination that crop up in this appeal is:-
"Whether the learned Tribunal has committed an error in
allowing application under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act
in the facts of the case?"
7. It is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of
law that at the stage of the proceeding under Section 140 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988, the Claims Tribunal has to verify only three aspects
which are as follows:-
(i) the accident has arisen out of use of motor vehicle,
(ii) the said accident resulted in permanent disablement of a person
filing the claim or in case of death his legal representatives,
(iii) the claim is made against the owner and the insurer of the motor
vehicle involved in the accident.
And the dispute with any of these aspects is to be
adjudicated by the Claims Tribunal through the summary proceeding.
8. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476, paragraph
no.13 of which reads as under:-
"13. However, the factum of an accident could also be
proved from the first information report. It is also to be
noted that once a part of the contents of the document is
admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record
M.A. No. 85 of 2013
cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the
other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not
been proved. Both the parties have relied thereupon. It was
marked as an exhibit as both the parties intended to rely
upon them." (Emphasis supplied)
That the factum of an accident could also be proved from the
First Information Report.
9. Now the fact remains undisputed that the appellant is the
owner of the vehicle bearing registration no. JH-04E-1573. It also
remains undisputed that in the First Information Report, it has
categorically been mentioned that the death of the deceased took place
because of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle of the appellant.
The police after investigation has found the allegation made against
the driver of the vehicle of the appellant to be true and submitted
charge sheet and came to the conclusion after due investigation of the
case that the deceased died in an accident by the tractor in question
bearing registration no. JH-04E-1573.
10. Under the considered opinion of this Court, the First
Information Report, the charge sheet coupled with the undisputed fact
that the appellant is the owner of the tractor bearing registration no.
JH-04E-1573 and the registration certificate of the said vehicle which
also shows that the appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle, is
sufficient within the ambit of a summary enquiry for awarding the
compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the learned
Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding the interim
compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act.
The sole point for determination is answered accordingly.
11. In view of the discussions made above, this appeal being
M.A. No. 85 of 2013
without any merit is dismissed on contest but under circumstances
without any costs.
12. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to remit the
statutory amount if any deposited by the appellant- owner of the
vehicle to the Tribunal concerned forthwith for payment of the said
amount to the claimants.
13. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the concerned
Tribunal forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 20th September, 2022
AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/-
