Ramgopal vs Shiviram
2023 Latest Caselaw 3144 MP

                                  1
 IN    THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                    ON THE 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                      MISC. APPEAL No. 264 of 2020

BETWEEN:-
RAMGOPAL S/O SHRI RAMKARAN NIMOLE, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS VILLAGE
ROHNI AT PRESENT R/O GAYATRI SHAKTI PEETH
MUNDI TEHSIL PUNASA KHANDWA (DRIVER OF
VEHICLE). (NON APPLICANT NO.1) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KAMAL SINGH RAJPUT- ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    SHIVRAM S/O GYAN SINGH KALAM AGED ABOUT
      44 YEARS,    R/O VILLAGE UTAWAD TEHSIL
      PUNASA,   DISTRICT    KHANDWA  (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    SMT. KANCHAN BAI W/O SHIVRAM KALAM,
      AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R /O VILLAGE UTAWAD
      TEHSIL PUNASA, DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    KUWAR SINGH S/O HEERALAL R/O BHAMORI
      INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY- ADVOCATE)

      This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed against the award dated 11.11.2019 passed by IInd Additional MACT, Khandwa, District Khandwa in MACC No. 70/2017.

2. The appellant is the driver of the vehicle. The factum of accident has been disputed.

3. According to the Claimant, the accident took place on 22.12.2011 and the deceased was working as a Helper in IVRCL Company. The work of lying down the pipes was going on. The respondent No. 1/appellant by driving the Hero Honda Motorcycle owned by the respondent No. 3/non applicant No. 2 dashed the deceased Jagdish in a rash and negligent manner as a result, the deceased Jagdish sustained grievious injuries. He was taken to Mundi Government Hospital from where he was referred to M.Y. Hospital, Indore. During the treatment, Jagdish expired.

4. The counsel for the appellant has tried to challenge the factum of accident on the ground that he was tried for an offence and in the said criminal case, he has been acquitted. The counsel for the appellant could not point out relevancy of the judgment pronounced in a criminal case.

5. The motor accident claim case has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before the tribunal. Merely because the witnesses have turned hostile in a criminal case and the appellant was acquitted, would not be sufficient to disbelieve the witnesses of the claimants. Thus, the first contention of the counsel for the appellant is hereby rejected.

6. It is next contended by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is the driver and he should not have been made jointly and severly responsible with the respondent No. 3.

7. The respondent No. 3 is the owner whereas the accident was caused by the appellant. Thus, the appellant cannot run away from his liability to pay the compensation. Even if the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant is accepted, then the owner of the vehicle can be exonerated and not

the appellant.

8. It is next contended by the counsel for the appellant that the accident took place in the year 2011 whereas the claim case was filed on 16.03.2017, therefore, it is barred by time.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Purohit and Company Vs. Khatoonbee and another, reported in AIR 2017 SC 1612 has held that since, no period of limitation is provided for filing the claim petition, therefore, the claim petition filed by the appellant cannot be dismissed on the ground that it was filed belatedly, however the same should be filed within reasonable period.

10. The appellant has given an explanation that he was not aware of the fact that any legal remedy is available to him and came to know about it only one Hukum Singh of the same village informed about the legal remedy. The said explanation was accepted by the Claims Tribunal. Furthermore there is a delay of approximately 6 years. Once the Claims Tribunal has accepted the explanation then this Court does not think it proper to reverse the same.

11. No other arguments is advanced by the counsel for the appellant.

12. As no perversity could be pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, accordingly, the award dated 11.11.2019 passed in MACC No. 70/2017 is hereby affirmed.

13. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE ashish ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE 2023.02.22 16:29:56 +05'30'