AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant, challenging the impugned award dated 25.06.2022, passed in M.A.C. No.139/2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.14,58,256/- as compensation for the death of Late Tarun Bhardwaj (21 years old), who died in a accident which took place on 10.08.2020. Furthermore, the liability for payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/insurance company.
The facts of the case in brief are that on the date of the incident i.e. 10.08.2021, at about 12:00 noon, the injured Amit Sarathi along with mason Damru, had gone to L.N. Rice Mill, Kondatarai and was working as a labourer in the construction work of the boundary wall in the rice mill. At about 12:00 noon, the vehicle owned by respondent No. 5 (Shri Kumar Atri), Loader Tractor No. CG 13 AN-6249, was being driven by respondent No.6, Shyamji Lal, in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, while loading husk (bhusa) lying near the wall into the vehicle. While repeatedly pushing the husk towards the old boundary wall, the brick debris of the old boundary wall, which was adjoining the wall under construction, fell on Tarun Bhardwaj and Amit Sarathi. Due to the falling of debris on Tarun Bhardwaj and Amit Sarathi, both got buried under the debris. Both were taken by ambulance to Jindal Hospital for treatment. During the course of treatment, Tarun Bhardwaj died. In this regard, the report of the said incident was lodged by the father of the deceased, Hemlal Bhardwaj, on 12.08.2021 at Police Station Kotwali, District Raigarh (C.G.). On which, Police Station Kotwali registered a First Information Report under Sections 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the unknown driver of the Loader Tractor at L.N. Rice Mill, Kondatarai, and after due investigation of the case, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused/ respondent No.6, Shyamji Lal, under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased died due to a wall collapsing on him, not as a result of a direct collision with the vehicle; therefore, the vehicle's insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. Therefore, the instant appeal may be allowed, and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside so far as the insurance company is held liable for payment of compensation.
Learned counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6 supported the impugned award and submitted that the alleged vehicle was insured with the appellant, who is liable for compensation.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
This Court finds that Claimant/Respondent No. 1, Hemlal Bhardwaj, presented unrebutted evidence comprising documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13, a direct sworn statement, the FIR (Ex.P-1), and the charge sheet (Ex.P-2) establishing that the incident on 10.08.2021 was a direct consequence of actionable negligence. The records clearly demonstrate that Respondent No. 6 was rashly and negligently operating the rice mill's loader tractor (No. CG 13 AN 6249) while loading husk. The excessive pressure exerted by this operation caused a boundary wall to collapse onto Tarun Bhardwaj and Amit Sarathi, resulting in fatal injuries to Tarun Bhardwaj during his treatment at Jindal Hospital, Raigarh (C.G.). Given that the appellant failed to present counter-evidence, examine witnesses, or effectively impeach the claimants’ testimony during cross-examination, the Tribunal correctly concluded that the accident and resulting fatality were directly attributable to the driver's negligence. Furthermore, it has not been established that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of any policy conditions.
Upon a meticulous evaluation of the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal properly appreciated the evidence and committed no infirmity or perversity in the impugned award warranting appellate interference.
Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed.