Point of Law: Owner of the offending vehicle, particularly, that is not insured, or even one that is insured, is not permitted to raise fanciful doubts about the involvement of a motor vehicle that has apparently caused an accident, resulting in injury to life or limb.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. This is an appeal by the driver and the owner, arising out of an award dated 22.02.2021 passed by Mr. Rakesh Dhar Dubey, Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pilibhit, allowing Motor Accident Claims Petition No.35 of 2016 and ordering payment of compensation to the claimant-respondents.

2. The facts giving rise to the motor accident claims are these:

On 13th November, 2015, according to the claimants, at about 5:00 o'clock in the evening, the deceased Prem Chand, along with his wife, Rammi Devi, was proceeding on bicycle from his in-laws' place, located in Dehgala, to Village Jagpura in the District of Pilibhit. Following him on a bicycle was his younger brother Bheemsen. Suddenly, a tempo bearing Registration No.UP-26T-0479 appeared from the opposite direction. It was driven at a high speed and negligently by its driver, Bhagwandas. The tempo hit the deceased's bicycle head on. The collision caused the deceased Prem Chand and Rammi Devi to sustain grievous injuries. The accident was witnessed by the deceased's brother and other natives of the village, to name a few, Ram Charan and Puttu Lal. The deceased's condition being serious, he was referred to Dr. S.K. Agrawal at the S.S. Hospital, Pilibhit. The deceased was subjected to an ultrasonographic examination, whereafter he was referred to Ganga Singh Hospital.

3. While on way to the Ganga Singh Hospital, the deceased passed away. An inquest was held by the Police of Police Station Nyuria and the dead body was sent for autopsy. A case was registered by the Police, being Case Crime No.1154 of 2015, under Sections 279, 338, 304A IPC, P.S. Nyuria, District Pilibhit against the driver, Bhagwandas. It is then said in the claim petition that the deceased had agricultural land, upon which he toiled to earn a sum of Rs.15,000/-per month from agricultural produce. In addition, he had seven cattle heads, five buffaloes and two cows that yielded milk, which he sold for Rs.10,000/-a month. The deceased had a total income of Rs.25,000/-per month that he utilized to provide for his wife and children, including the children's education. The deceased was a young and hard working man, who would go on to earn more from his exertions. It is also said in the claim petition that the deceased's wife would also aid him in productive work. Prem Chand’s untimely demise plunged the family's future into an abyss of darkness. They faced financial crisis, which led them to sell off their milch cattle. The couple's three children are all pursuing educational courses. The entire finances of the family, including the education of the children, has been imperiled by the unfortunate accident. The family have also incurred debt. The deceased's wife has been deprived of her spousal consortium, and so have the children of the love and affection of their father. The claimants have asked that they be awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.68,32,000/-together 18% annual interest from the date of accident until realization.

4. Bhagwandas, the driver of the offending vehicle, who is appellant no.1, was arrayed as opposite party no.1 to the claim petition. He shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the driver'. The driver filed a written statement, denying his involvement in the accident. He has asserted that by setting up a false claim, the claimants desire to recover compensation. It is also pleaded that the driver has been wrongly impleaded. He is not answerable to pay any compensation. He did not cause the accident and was not present at the place of accident at all. He has no connection at all to the offending vehicle, that is to say, tempo bearing Registration No. UP-26T-0479 nor had he ever had any connection with the said vehicle. A false and malicious First Information Report (for short, 'the FIR') has been lodged against him. He is not at all responsible for the accident. He has a valid licence, that was valid on the date of accident also.

5. Niranjan Lal is the owner of the of