Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1430
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.
Aneeta Devi, wife of Late Mahesh Prasad Mehta - Appellant
Versus
Shiv Shankar Mehta, son of Bengali Prasad Mehta - Respondent
M.A. No. 172 of 2015
Decided on : 25-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
Correct and relevant documentation is essential for establishing claims in motor vehicle accidents; courts may remand cases for the introduction of proper evidence.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 140 and 166 - Dismissal of the claim application for compensation due to lack of evidence connecting the accident to the offending vehicle - The claimants inadvertently presented documents pertaining to a Dumper instead of the actual Bolero car involved in the accident - Court determined the need for remand to allow the introduction of relevant evidence specific to the Bolero car. (Paras 5, 16, 17)
(B) Evidence - Importance of presenting correct evidence in establishing claims - Insufficient evidence regarding vehicle connection leads to dismissal of claims. (Paras 5, 17)
Facts of the case:
The claim resulted from a fatal accident involving the deceased as a pillion rider on a motorcycle when it was struck by a Bolero car. The claim was dismissed for lack of evidence linking the Bolero to the accident, as the documents provided pertained to a Dumper. (Paras 2-5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the earlier dismissal was due to lack of documents for the correct vehicle. The claimants should be allowed to present the correct evidence. Remanded the case to the Tribunal. (Paras 16-17)
Issues: Whether the evidence regarding the offending vehicle was sufficient to establish liability and merit for compensation claims. (Paras 5, 17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for accurate documentation and evidence linking the actual offending vehicle to the accident; remanding the case allows evidence gathering to correct previous deficiencies. (Paras 16-17)
Result: Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and evidence overview (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. tribunal's rationale for claim dismissal (Para 5 , 12 , 13 , 16) |
| 3. claimants' arguments for remanding the case (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. documents presented to identify the offending vehicle (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. remand of case for fresh consideration (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.
1. The claimants are the appellants before this Court. The instant Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.03.2014 passed in Claim Case No. 32/2008 passed by learned District Judge-V-cum- P.O., M.V. Act, Hazaribagh whereby the claim application has been dismissed as the learned Tribunal has decided all the issues against the claimants.
2. It is the case of the appellants/claimants that on 22.06.2007 was fateful day when accident took place between the Motorcycle and a new Bolero car not having registration number, having Engine No.- GF74E60660 and Chassis No.- MAIXA-2GEK72E25889. Mahesh Prasad Mehta (since deceased) being a pillion while returning home along with Prakash Mehta who was driving the motorcycle which was dashed by new Bolero car in a rash and negligent manner and as a result Mahesh Prasad Mehta (since deceased) fell towards the right side and his head came under the wheels of said new Bolero car. Mahesh Prasad Mehta (since deceased) sustained serious injuries due to said motor accident and succumbed to injury in course of treatment.
3. An F.I.R got registered on the fardbayan of Murli Prasad Mehta, brother of the deceased under Sections 279 /304(A) of IPC. Thereafter, due investigation was done and charge sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, the claimants filed an application u/s 140 and 166 M.V. Act arraying the owner of new Bolero car having Engine No.- GF74E60660 and Chassis No.- MAIXA-2GEK72E25889 and insurer of the said new Bolero car as respondent no.-2. Despite service of notice, owner of new Bolero car did not turn up for enquiry and thus, learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against the owner, however insurance company participated in the enquiry and also filed W.S denying claim of claimants on various grounds.
4. In Support of their claim, claimants got examined three witnesses, C.W.-1 Murli Prasad Mehta who happens to be informant and brother of deceased, C.W.-2 Anita Devi who happens to be wife of deceased and C.W.-3 Ramchandra Prasad Mehta. C.W.-1 reiterated the incident and rest two witnesses stated that they were not eye witnesses to the said accident and deposed about the work and monthly income of the deceased.
Claimants further brought on record following documents :
I. Ext.1 is he F.I.R. of Ichak P.S. Case No.185 of 2007.
II. Ext.2 is the charge-sheet of Ichak P.S. Case No.185 of 2007.
III. Mark X is the copy of postmortem report of Mahesh Prasad Mehta.
IV. Mark X/1 is the copy of certificate of registration of Dumper No.WB-37A-6668; wherein name of registered owner mentioned as Harjeet Singh.
V. Mark X/2 is the copy of driving license of Dashrath Mahto.
VI. Mark X/3 is the temporary permit of Dumper No. WB-37A-6668.
VII. Mark Y is the copy of premium computation table issued by I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company.
5. After analyzing materials available on record, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the documents filed by the claimants belongs to Dumper having No.- WB 37 A 6668 whereas offending vehicle which found mentioned in the F.I.R and charge sheet was Bolero car and thus, failed to connect the alleged new Bolero car with the said accident. Also, non-examination of rider of motorcycle on which deceased was pillion driver was taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal and therefore, dismissed the claim application. The appellants/claimants being aggrieved preferred this appeal.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that I.A. No. 4290 of 2025 has been preferred under Order 41 Rule 27 o
