Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Prasad Gupta Son Of Late Aditya ... vs Fagu Singh Son Of Late Ramsahay Singh on 6 February, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No.268 of 2016
------
Krishna Prasad Gupta son of Late Aditya Sao, resident Village Banduwa, P.S.
& P.O. Manika, District Latehar (Jharkhand)- Driver cum owner of the Tempo
bearing registration no.JH 19A 1700 .... .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Fagu Singh son of Late Ramsahay Singh
2. Smt. Unti Devi wife of Fagu Singh
Both residents of Village Sotam, P.O. & P.S. Latehar, District Latehar
(Jharkhand) .... .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : None
------
Order No.07 / Dated : 06.02.2025
Owner of the Tempo bearing registration no.JH 19A 1700 against
whom liability has been fixed to pay compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- with
interest @ 7% under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, is in appeal before
this Court against the judgment and award of compensation.
2. Claimants are the parents of Pradeep Singh aged 22 years, who died
in a motor vehicle accident when the tempo with an accident while travelling
as passenger in Tempo bearing registration no.JH 19A 1700. Learned Tribunal
recorded a finding that the Tempo was not under insurance cover at the
relevant time of accident and therefore, liability has been fixed on the owner
of the vehicle.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of appellant that as per
the FIR, the registration number of the Tempo has not been mentioned in the
FIR. It is further argued that as per the case of the claimant, deceased had a
fall from the tempo which does not corroborates ante-mortem injuries as
found in the post-mortem examination report (Exhibit 4). Post-mortem
examination report records extensive injury which are as under: -
Fracture of cervical vertebra i.e. 4th, 5th, 6th with spinal injury over cervical
region and except above, external haematoma over cervical region of brain
(head) and fracture and dislocation of right shoulder was also found and
there was fracture of left femur of left lower limb.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, that
this is a classical case where a good Samaritan had to suffer the consequence
of his benevolent act. It has come in evidence led on behalf of the appellant
that deceased was lying in an injured condition on the road, and was carried
by the appellant for his treatment to the hospital. There is no contrary eye
witness to suggest that it was the tempo which had dashed the deceased. It
was not even the case of applicant that tempo had dashed the deceased.
Against the weight of evidence a finding has been recorded by the Tribunal
that it was the tempo of the appellant that had caused the accident.
5. Further, extensive injuries noted in the postmortem report cannot be
caused in an accidental fall by a slow three wheeler tempo.
6. No one has appeared on behalf of the claimants/respondents
therefore, the hearing in the instant appeal is proceeding ex-parte against
claimants/respondents.
7. On perusal of the record of the case, I find support in the argument
advanced on behalf of the appellant that Learned Tribunal in para 8 of the
judgment states that it was caused due to dashing of the Tempo with the
deceased, which is contrary to the case as set up in the claim application.
D.W. 2- Sandeep Ram and D.W.3- Ramu Singh, who were travelling by the
same Tempo, have stated that deceased was found in an injured condition on
the road and the appellant had simply carried him to the hospital on which
the case was registered against him. D.W. 4- Vishnu Prasad was also local
resident, has also stated that the deceased was carried on the Tempo to the
hospital in injured condition. On the contrary, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, who were
examined on behalf of the claimants, were not direct eye witness and the
learned Tribunal has not given any reason to disagree with the findings of the
defence witnesses. The finding of the tribunal on Issue No.II that the accident
was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tempo, is
therefore unsupported by evidence, and is accordingly set aside.
Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed.
Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
