IMPORTANT POINT
The sufficiency of evidence and the application of Section 114 of the Evidence Act in establishing the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident.

JUDGMENT

Dharmesh Sharma, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 6626/2024 (Ex.)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

MAC.APP. 83/2024 & CM APPL. 6625/2024 (Stay)

3. The appellant/Insurance Company is assailing the impugned judgment-cum-award dated 10.11.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-02, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [Tribunal ] primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred in finding the involvement of the offence vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-02CB-8286 in the accident resulting in the death of the deceased/motorcycle rider, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma.

4. Learned counsels for the appellant referred to the contents of the First Information Report [FIR] vis-a-vis testimony of R3W1/IO-SI Om Prakash from Police Station Kotwali District Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh besides that of PW-2 Mahender Singh, who was produced as an eye witness to the accident. It was submitted that in the FIR No. 177/2015 under Section 279/337/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC ] Police Station Sahibabad, Ghaziabad no details about the offending vehicle were given and it was also reported that the deceased motorcyclist was struck by some unknown vehicle and when he fell down there was another vehicle, which came from behind and crushed the head of the injured motorcyclist and fled away from the spot leading to the death of the injured at the spot. It was also urged that testimony of R3W1 i.e. the Investigating Officer was based on the information by the secret informer, thereby enabling him to trace the whereabouts of the offending vehicle as well as the registered owner is not fathomable. While, the PW-2 in his testimony does not inspire confidence as to the manner in which the accident had occurred.

5. The aforesaid submissions on the part of the appellant/Insurance Company have been dealt with by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment-cum-award vide paragraph (14) and it would be expedient to reproduce the same, which goes as follows:

"14. Having considered the submissions and going through the evidence of R3W 1, the fact that involvement of offending vehicle has been made belatedly in the investigation of criminal case on the basis of information given by secret informer, ipso facto cannot be considered to be a reason for concoction or fraudulent involvement of vehicle when nothing has come on the judicial record. It is matter of record that driver/respondent no. l of the offending vehicle bearing no.RJ-02CB-8286 faced prosecution in the criminal case. Certified copy of criminal case documents are on record. Moreover PW2 is the eye witness who also deposed consistently regarding the manner in which accident taken place. Thus on the basis of evidence of PW2 coupled with documents on record, there is sufficient evidence available on record to prove that accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. l. Issue thus decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents."

6. On a careful perusal of the material on the record, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence that was brought on the record. Incidentally, R3W1/SI Om Prakash was a witness for appellant/insurance company only, whose testimony goes as under:

I am summoned witness and have brought the summoned record i.e. copy of case diary which was attested by me as original is filed in Ld. ACJM-8, Ghaziabad Court. On 20.2.2015, I got lodged the FIR and Investigation was marked to me. I recorded statement of Subhash Chand. In FIR, the name of driver and number of offending vehicle is mentioned. On 24.2.2015, I further investigated the case but there was no clue regarding the offending vehicle. On 26.2.2015, I recorded statement of witness of Punchnama. On 2.3.2015, I had taken the PM report of deceased and thereafter on 18.3.2015,I got mechanical inspection report of vehicle which was driven by the deceased. On 28.4.2015, I again conducted