This Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has

been filed against the award dated 20-6-2019 passed by 3^rd Member,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagod, Distt. Satna in M.A.C.C.

No.47/2017.

3 M.A.No.6569/2019

The Claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act pleading inter alia that on 26-6-2017, the deceased Jagpati

Tiwari was going on his motor cycle. As soon as he reached near

Karsara culvert, he received a mobile call. Therefore, after stopping the

motor cycle, he was talking to the caller and was standing by the side of

the road. At that time, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., car

bearing registration No. MP 19 CA 7852, by driving the vehicle in a

rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased as a result he sustained

injuries on his head, face and other parts of the body. The deceased died

on the spot. FIR was lodged.

The Appellant filed its written statement and denied that any

accident took place. It was the stand of the Appellant that the deceased

while driving the motor cycle was talking on his mobile phone, as a

result he himself fell down from the motor cycle.

The Claims Tribunal after framing issues and recording evidence,

allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 12,79,600/-

with 6% interest.

Challenging the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, it is

submitted by the Counsel for the Appellant that the FIR was lodged

belatedly, which clearly indicates that the offending vehicle was planted

after due deliberations. The vehicle number was not mentioned in the

merg intimation.

Per contra, the Counsel for the claimants has supported the

award.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

4 M.A.No.6569/2019

8.

According to the claimants, the accident took place on 26-6-2017

at 7:30. The merg intimation, Ex. P/3, was given by Ram Krishna

Tiwari on 26-6-2017 itself. It is true that in the merg intimation, the

number of the offending vehicle was not mentioned, but Ram Krishna

Tiwari was not an eye witness. In the merg intimation itself, it was

mentioned that after receiving telephonic information, he reached on the

spot and found that the deceased was lying dead on the spot. However, it

was specifically mentioned in the merg intimation, that an information

was received that the deceased has met with a road accident. Since, the

merg intimation was not given by an eye witness, therefore, the non-

mention of registration number of offending vehicle will not have any

adverse effect.

9.

However, one thing is clear. The merg intimation was given on

the very same date. But the police did not enquire into the matter, and

the FIR, Ex.-P/2 was lodged on 23-7-2017 after recording the merg

statements of the witnesses. If the police was sleeping and did not

enquire into the matter immediately and recorded the statements of the

witnesses belatedly, then the claimants cannot be blamed for such a

belated act of the enquiry officer. The Supreme Court in the case of

Gohar Mohammad Vs. Utter Pradesh State Road Transport

Corporation & Others by judgment dated 15.12.2022 passed in C.A.

No. 9322/2022 has held as under:-

“62.

Accordingly, this appeal is decided with the

following directions:

i)

The appeal filed by the owner challenging

the issue of liability is hereby dismissed confirming

the order passed by the High Court and MACT.

5 M.A.No.6569/2019

ii)

On receiving the intimation regarding road

accident by use of a motor vehicle at public place,

the SHO concerned shall take steps as per Section

159 of the M.V. Amendment Act.

iii)

After registering the FIR, Investigating

Officer shall take recourse as specified in the M.V.

Amendment Rules, 2022 and submit the FAR

with