Order on Board

(01.05.2024)

1. This is insurer’s appeal against the award dated

30.04.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.172/2014.

2. As against the compensation of Rs.32,87,500/- claimed by the unfortunate children (respondents No. 1 to 3 herein) of deceased – Khubiram Chandrawanshi by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for his death in the motor accident on 14.11.2013, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,40,529/- as compensation along with interest @

7% per annum in favour of the claimants.

3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held:

the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tavera/vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04- HB-2822 by its driver/owner Sarju Patel – respondent No.4 herein; Khubiram died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident; in parasgraphs 12 to14, the tribunal observed and found that the driver/owner and insurance company has not examined any evidence on their behalf, but the claimants have examined Arun Chandrawanshi (AW-02) on their behalf. Arun Chandrawanshi (AW-02) stated that at the time of the accident, he was present on the spot, he is not able to state the registration number of the vehicle, but he states that a white colour Tavera vehicle was coming from Bilaspur and the said accident has occurred. This witness was subjected to cross-examination in which he remained consistent. The statement of this witness has also corroborated with the Mechanical Mulahja (Ex.P-16).

Further, the Tribunal found that there is no material available on record to disbelieve the statement of the eyewitness and held that the offending vehicle/Tavera is the vehicle by which the said accident occurred due to which the deceased suffered grievous injuries and died and assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as compensation.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the claims Tribunal ignored to observe that the appellant/insurance company has raised the ground that the appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant because as per F.I.r. the accident occurred by vehicle Bolero of white colour and the appellant has insured the vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-HB-2822. The accident did not occur by the vehicle which was insured by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The Tribunal ignored to observe that the vehicle was seized on 17.12.2013 though the accident occurred on 14.11.2013 and the vehicle was seized approximately after 1 month and 3 days. The seized vehicle did not suffer any damage according to the mechanical Mulahja report (Ex.A-16). She further submits that the owner of the vehicle has also stated in his written statement that his vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-04-

HB-2822 insured by the appellant is not involved in the accident but without taking evidence of the owner of the vehicle and appellant, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred by vehicle bearing registration No. CG- 04-HB-2822. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellant/insurance company is exonerated from the liability of payment of compensation.

5. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned.

7. It is clear from the evidence that the FIR has been lodged on the same day of the accident i.e. 14.11.2013 and the offending vehicle/Tavera was seized on 17.12.2013 vide Ex. A-15 and subjected to mechanical examination (Ex. A- 16). The mechanical inspection report (Ex.P-16) of the vehicle revealed that the bumper of the vehicle was damaged and white paint had been applied there. The indicators of the vehicle was replaced with new indicators which shows that it was the vehicle that caused the accident. The assessment of the Tribunal is correct that the people from rural area