JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. Advocate Mr. Darshan Dave for Ms. Krushita D.Dave, for the appellants submits that the claimants are seven dependents of deceased - Vikramsinh Magansinh Parmar, who had challenged the judgment and order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in M.A.C.P. No. 142 of 2015, where the claim petition under section 166 of M.V. Act, came to be dismissed on the ground that the involvement of vehicle bearing Registration No. GJ-01-KL-4351, is not proved.

2. Mr. Dave submitted that deceased was on the correct side of Talod Road, which was from Vavdi Chokdi to Talod, and the accident occurred at about 7:30 in the evening at Dhanpura Kampa Stand, when the car no. GJ-01-KL-4351, came at very excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner. It is submitted by Mr. Dave that in breach of traffic rule, though there was sufficient space on the road, he came negligently and dashed the deceased, who sustained severe head injury and serious injury on the chest, and during the course of treatment he was declared dead.

3. Mr. Dave submitted that FIR has been given by cousin, who was not present at the place, but under information received from others, he filed FIR, where in the FIR he has noted as ‘Jeep Car’. Mr. Dave submitted that it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to find out the real facts, where the person giving the FIR is not the eye witness to the incident. In such a case, information in the FIR would be collected from the person, who has knowledge about the accident. Mr. Dave further stated that, had the learned Tribunal any doubt about the involvement of the vehicle, then should have follow the directions given in Jay Prakash vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, (2010) 2 SCC 607 and the Tribunal on its own should have received the Accident Information Report (AIR) in Form No. 54 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, and should have verified all the real facts to the accident. Mr. Dave submitted that the learned Tribunal has placed all the burden on the claimants, who are not the eye witness to the incident. Mr. Dave states that the charge-sheet has been filed against opponent no. 1 - Driver, Indravadan Prahaladbhai Patel of Hundai I-10 Car No. GJ-01-KL-4351, and the owner of the vehicle is opponent no. 2.

4. Mr. Dave further submitted that the Tribunal inquiring in Form No. -54, placed much reliance on the arguments of learned Advocate of the Insurance Company, where it was rather the bounden duty of the Insurance Company to have brought the real facts on record to have shown the Court the actual vehicle involved, where it was not at all necessary to go beyond the charge-sheet which has been filed by the police, would be only after the detail investigation.

5. It appears that the Insurance Company has contended that the ‘telephonic Vardhi’ where the alleged vehicle involved in the accident is shown as Bolero. The FIR has been lodged by the cousin of the deceased against unknown Jeep driver. Even at the time of drawing of Panchnama, on the next day, the vehicle was not present. The eye witness - Dhirajbhai Babubhai Patel has not disclosed the number of the car. Moreover, it has been contended by the Insurance Company that Hyundai I-10 Car No. GJ-01-KL-4351 was not involved in the accident.

6. The learned Tribunal while considering the case has found substance in the argument canvassed by the Advocate of the Insurance Company, observing that no complaint was lodged on the same day i.e. on 08.02.2012. The complainant has specifically lodged the same against unknown Jeep and the word ‘Jeep’ has been repeatedly used almost about six times in the complaint, wherein the Vardhi Bolero has been specifically mentioned; so, there is no chance of any faint memory while lodging the complaint also. The learned Tribunal has further mentioned that opponent nos.1 and 2 in their reply admitted the incident of accident.

6.1 It is strange to note that the learned