The court affirmed that a driver cannot be held negligent if not identified as the actual driver at the time of the accident, impacting insurance liability.

Order

25/01/2024

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 13.06.2022 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (Raj.) in MAC Case No.332/2013 (CIS No.332/2013) whereby the claim petition as preferred by the claimants has been rejected.

2. Vide the impugned judgment, while deciding issue Nos.1 & 3, the learned Tribunal specifically reached to a conclusion that Bhawani Singh (defendant No.2), the alleged driver, had wrongly been implicated in the matter and it was proved on record that he was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The Tribunal, after considering the material evidence available on record, observed that the FIR was lodged against Sher Singh and even the criminal proceeding was initiated against Sher Singh only who was the driver of the vehicle involved. The learned Tribunal specifically held the matter to be a clear example of misuse of the powers and authority by the police authorities. Therefore, while rejecting the claim petition, the learned Tribunal proceeded on to issue directions for departmental enquiry against the guilty police officers and rightly so.

3. In the opinion of this Court, the findings as arrived by the learned Tribunal being totally in consonance with the evidence and the material available on record, does not deserve any interference.

It is crystal clear on record that the police constable Pooran Mal, who was the eye witness to the said accident and who lodged the FIR, specifically mentioned in the FIR that soon after the accident, the injured driver of the vehicle was pulled out of the vehicle and when asked, he identified himself to be Sher Singh S/o Gopal Singh. He being injured, was immediately sent to the hospital. The same police constable Pooran Mal deposed before the learned Tribunal that in the FIR, he did not mention the name of the driver to be Sher Singh. In the opinion of this Court, as rightly held by the learned Tribunal, the said deposition of Pooran Mal could not have been relied upon. Moreso, even because of the fact that in his cross-examination, Pooran Mal admitted that Sher Singh, the driver of the vehicle, drove the same rashly and negligently and hit Radha Kishan causing injuries to him.

4. Hence, in view of the specific finding that defendant No.2 Bhawani Singh, was not even the driver of the vehicle in question, no finding qua him of he, driving in a rash and negligent manner, could have been arrived and neither could he have been held negligent. The findings on Issue Nos.1 & 3 hence, does not deserve any interference and are affirmed.

5. In view of the above findings having been affirmed, it cannot be concluded that the vehicle was driven/used in terms of the conditions of the Insurance policy so as to hold the Insurance Company liable to indemnify the owner. Finding on Issue No.2 also therefore, does not deserve any interference.

6. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed.

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.