Back
2024 Supreme(MP) 172
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Avanindra Kumar Singh, JJ.
Devkaliya @ Devkali (Must.) & Others v. Dharmendra
Singh & Another
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4733 of 2019 (Jabalpur): against the award dated 5.2.2019 passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna in Claim Case No. 3400550/2016; Decided on 11.3.2024
Rajendra Maravi for appellants;
B. P. Vishwakarma for respondent No. 2.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 166 and 168 -- claim dismissed on ground that death of deceased on account of accident caused by respondent No. 1 by his motorcycle is not proved because it is mentioned in marg intimation that he was crushed by ox -- investigation officer was sought to be summoned on behalf of applicants but application rejected by Tribunal on ground that applicants’ evidence has been closed -- Insurance Company’s application to summon head constable who recorded marg also dismissed -- held -- marg intimation was not given by appellants/claimants or their family members but by ward boy, who was not eye-witness -- ward boy not been made a witness by police -- duty of Court is to go into root of matter but that effort not made by Tribunal -- held further -- respondent No. 1 remained ex parte -- adverse inference should have been drawn against him -- held further -- investigating officer is necessary witness -- without examining him, no correct finding can be recorded regarding accident -- award set aside -- matter remanded to give opportunity to both parties to lead their respective evidence regarding investigation -- Tribunal directed to give findings on all issues after recording evidence. [Paras 13 to 17]
eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 166 rFkk 168 & nkok bl vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd e`rd dh e`R;q çR;FkhZ Ø- 1 }kjk viuh eksVjlkbfdy ls dkfjr nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k lkfcr ugha D;ksafd exZ lalwpuk esa mfYyf[kr fd mls lk¡M us dqpyk Fkk & vkosndx.k dh vksj ls vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh dks leu djus dh bZIlk dh xbZ ijarq vf/kdj.k }kjk vkosnu bl vk/kkj ij ukeatwj fd vkosndx.k dk lk{; lekIr fd;k tk pqdk gS & exZ vfHkfyf[kr djus okys gSM d‚ULVscy dks leu djus dk chek daiuh dk vkosnu Hkh [kkfjt & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & exZ lalwpuk vihykFkhZx.k@nkosnkj ;k muds dqVqac ds lnL;ksa }kjk ugha nh xbZ Fkh vfirq okMZ vuqdehZ }kjk nh xbZ Fkh tks çR;{kn'khZ lk{kh ugha Fkk & okMZ vuqdehZ dks iqfyl us lk{kh ugha cuk;k & U;k;ky; dk drZO; ekeys dh tM+ rd tkus dk gS ijarq vf/kdj.k }kjk ;g ç;Ru ugha fd;k x;k -- vkxs vfHkfu/kkZfjr & çR;FkhZ Ø- 1 ,di{kh; jgk & mlds fo:) çfrdwy fu"d"kZ fudkyk tkuk pkfg, Fkk & vkxs vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh vko';d lk{kh gS & mldh ijh{kk fd, fcuk nq?kZVuk ds ckjs esa lgh fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & vf/kfu.kZ; vikLr & nksuksa i{kksa dks vUos"k.k ds laca/k esa viuk-viuk lk{; is'k djus dk volj nsus ds fy, ekeyk çfrçsf"kr & vf/kdj.k dks lk{; vfHkfyf[kr djus ds mijkar leLr fook|dksa ij fu"d"kZ nsus dk funs'kA ¼iSjk 13 ls 17½
ORDER
1. Record is received. Considered I.A.No.11718/2019, which is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. It is stated that there is delay of 85 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, it appears that there exist sufficient cause for condonation of delay for not filing the appeal within prescribed time. Accordingly, I.A.No.11718/2019 is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. Heard on admission. The appeal is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is heard finally.
4. This Misc.Appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short the “Act”] has been filed by the appellants/claimants against dismissal of their Claim Case No.3400550/2016 by the 8th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna [hereinafter referred to the as the “Tribunal”] vide award dated 5.2.2019.
5. Brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants filed claim petition under section 166 of the Act stating that on 10.8.2016 at about 7.30 p.m. husband of appellant/claimant No.1, namely, Ramvishwas was returning to home from his field by feet and As soon as he reached near Mohariya field at that juncture the respondent No.1 driving his motorcycle (MP-19/MN-9317) in rash and negligent manner dashed against deceased-Ramvishwas resulting in grievous injuries as a result of which he ultimately died in District Hospital during treatment, therefore, compensation of Rs.22,55,000/- be granted.
6. The learned Tribunal held that it is not proved that deceased died on account of accident caused by respondent through dash of motorcycle in question. The Tribunal has not recorded any finding in respect of Issues No.2, 3 & 4 on the ground that accident is not proved. Accordingly, it dismissed the claim petition.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Tribunal did not allow parties to adduce evidence and proceeded to dismiss the claim petition and hence, matter be remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to the concerned Tribunal to afford opportunity to all the parties to lead proper evidence on all issues.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has supported the impugned award and submitted that deceased died as he was crushed by an Ox but after about a month false story was made to get compensation.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record it is seen that deceased got seriously injured. On getting information the Police registered Marg intimation. On the basis of Marg enquiry, Crime was registered for offences under sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent No.1. After investigation charge-sheet has also been filed against respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 did not file written statement before the Tribunal and chose to remain ex parte. The Insurance Company in its written statement before the Tribunal raised an objection that in Marg intimation it is mentioned that a male person was crused by an Ox and was brought dead on 10.8.2016 and in that case information about motorcycle was not given and there was breach of Insurance Policy as he was not possessing driving licence.
10. In the Tribunal the statement of niece of deceased was recorded. The niece-Ankita Verma has been examined as AW.2 who has supported the claim case and submitted that she was with her ‘Tauji’/’Bade Papa’. She also stated that when they went to lodge a report, the Police did not lodge report on that day, therefore, report was lodged on the next date. The witness on behalf of Insurance Company, namely, Mohd.Sadik (NA.No.1) deposed before the Tribunal that deceased-Ramvishwas died due to accident with an Ox, although he admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of accident he was not present at the spot.
11. Very crucial to this case is that on 31.10.2018 on behalf of the applicants the Investigation Officer-Shyam Sunder
