Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 32584
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH MISC. APPEAL No. 1059 OF 2017 BETWEEN:- SMT. NEELAM W/O LATE SHRI DESHRAJ, AGED 28 YEARS, CASTE SIKARWAR, THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE BEHRARA, POLICE STATION DEVGARH, PARGANA JAURA, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH) .....APPELLANT (BY SMT. MEENA SINGHAL - ADVOCATE ) AND 1 RAJESH SINGH S/O SHRI VISHNUSINGH, CASTE THAKUR, LAKSHMI COLONY, NAINAGARH ROAD, MORENA, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH) (VEHICLE OWNER). 2. BHUPENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI ADIRAM SINGH, CASTE THAKUR, R/O KHERO WALO KA PURA, PARGANA JAURA, DISTRICT MORENA(MADHYA PRADESH) (VEHICLE DRIVER). 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, JAYENDRAGANJ, LASHKAR, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH). 4. SMT. PRAKASH DEVI W/O SHRI GANDHARVA SINGH, AGED 61 YEARS 5. GANDHARVA SINGH S/O SHRI PAL SINGH, AGED 63 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO. 4 AND 5 BY CASTE SIKARWAR THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE BEHRARA, POLICE STATION DEVGARH, PARGANA JAURA, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2 THOUGH SERVED, SHRI S.GAJENDRAGADKAR – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3) AND MISC. APPEAL No. 2717 OF 2017 BETWEEN:- 1. SMT. BEBI W/OI LATE SHRI CHHOTASINGH, AGED 32 YEARS 2. MOHIT S/O LATE SHRI CHHOTA SINGH, AGED 13 YEARS, 3. KUMARI NEELAM D/O LATE SHRI CHHOTASINGH, AGED 10 YEARS, 4. SMT. RAMBETI W/O SHRIVASUDEV SINGH, AGED 58 YEARS, 5. BASUDEV SINGH S/O LATE SHRI RAMSINGH, AGED 60 YEARS, ALL BY CASTE SIKARWAR THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE BEHRARE KA PURA, KHADOLI, POLICE STATION DEVGARH, PARGANA JAURA, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH) .....APPELLANTS (BY SMT. MEENA SINGHAL - ADVOCATE ) AND 1 RAJESH SINGH S/O SHRI VISHNUSINGH, CASTE THAKUR, LAKSHMI COLONY, NAINAGARH ROAD, MORENA, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH) (VEHICLE OWNER). 2. BHUPENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI ADIRAM SINGH, CASTE THAKUR, R/O KHERO WALO KA PURA, PARGANA JAURA, DISTRICT MORENA(MADHYA PRADESH) (VEHICLE DRIVER). 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, JAYENDRAGANJ, LASHKAR, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH). .....RESPONDENTS (NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2 THOUGH SERVED, SHRI S.GAJENDRAGADKAR – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3) AND MISC. APPEAL No. 2718 OF 2017 BETWEEN:- 1.SMT. RENU W/O LATE SHRI SANTOSH SINGH, AGED 29 YEARS 2. KUMARI MUSKAN D/O LATE SHRI SANTOSH SINGH, AGED 8 YEARS 3. HITENDRA W/O LATE SHRI SANTOSH SINGH, AGED 6 YEARS 4. JANAK SINGH S/O SHRI BUDHSINGH, AGED 64 YEARS APPELLANTS NO. 2 AND 3 SINCE MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. RENU W/O LATE SHRI SANTOSH SINGH ALL BY CASTE THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE BEHRARE KA PURA, KHADOLI, POLICE STATION DEVGARH, PARGANA JAURA, DISTRICT MORENA, AT PRESENT OPPOSITE KALI MATA TEMPLE, SIDHH NAGAR, MORENA, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH) .....APPELLANTS (BY SMT. MEENA SINGHAL - ADVOCATE ) AND 1. RAJESH SINGH S/O SHRI VISHNUSINGH, CASTE THAKUR, LAKSHMI COLONY, NAINAGARH ROAD, MORENA, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH) (VEHICLE OWNER). 2. BHUPENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI ADIRAM SINGH, CASTE THAKUR, R/O KHERO WALO KA PURA, PARGANA JAURA, DISTRICT MORENA(MADHYA PRADESH) (VEHICLE DRIVER). 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, JAYENDRAGANJ, LASHKAR, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH). .....RESPONDENTS (NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2 THOUGH SERVED, SHRI S.GAJENDRAGADKAR – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=- Reserved on : 14/12/2023 Delivered on : 05/01/2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ These appeals having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for pronouncement this day, this court passed the following:
Meena Singhal,
ORDER
This common order shall govern disposal of M.A.No. 1059/2017 (Smt. Neelam Vs. Rajesh Singh & Ors.), M.A.No. 2717/2017 (Smt. Beby and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Singh and Ors.) and M.A.No. 2718/2017 (Smt. Renu & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Singh & Ors.) as all these appeals are filed by appellants/claimants against a common award dated 31/7/2017 passed by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Morena in Claim Case No. 47/2011, 48/2011 and 49/2011 respectively; whereby, the claim case preferred by appellants/claimants have been rejected. Hence, they are before this Court.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on the date of incident i.e. 2/4/2011 when deceased Deshram, Chhotasingh and Santoshsingh on a motorcycle were going from Morena towards Dholpur, it is alleged that as soon as they reached on AB Road, in the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Saraychhola, District Morena, the driver of the offending truck by driving the truck in rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle from the backside, due to which Deshram, Chhotasingh and Santoshsingh sustained grievous hurts and succumbed to the same. Therefore, their LRs preferred claim petitions seeking compensation for their death however, by the impugned award their claim cases have been rejected on the ground that appellants failed to establish the factum of accident by the offending vehicle and it appears that vehicle in question has been involved in the case with collusion.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim of appellants. Though FIR was lodged against unknown vehicle but during investigation, number of truck was known and thereafter driver of offending vehicle was arrested.
Truck was owned by its owner respondent no. 1 and was duly insured with Insurance Company. Claimants proved their case by examining witnesses and no witness was examined on behalf of respondents and therefore, also learned Claims Tribunal erred in rejected the claim of claimants in absence of any rebuttal on its own.
4. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has not considered all the issues framed by its and in a summary manner the claim has been dismissed only on issue NO. 1 though eight issues were framed and the matter was decided only on issue NO. 1. She further submitted that under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claim can be launched against other party also and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the matter in a summary manner.
5. She further submitted that the relevant case laws were cited, which were also referred by the Tribunal in its impugned order, but the tribunal did not discuss the laws as to how they were distinguishable while holding them to be distinguishable.
6. None appeared on behalf of driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
7. Counsel for Insurance Company argued in support of impugned award and prayed for dismissal of all these appeals.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in my view the claim deserves to be re-decided by the Tribunal in the light of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellants as perusal of impugned award makes it clear that Claims Tribunal has framed as many as eight issues and decided the claim of appellants only on issue No. 1 without answering other issues. Therefore, in light of decision of Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Smt. Aruna Godika and Ors. Vs Hansmukh Patel and Ors., (2013) SCC Online Raj 3309, in which also the learned Claims Tribunal did not give finding on all the issues and also did not consider the arguments and citations produced before the learned Claims Tribunal and the High Court had remanded the case for rehearing, I think it appropriate that the matters before this Court also need to be re-decided in the light of the above decision Smt.Aruna (S
