Hantok And Ors vs Nar Singh And Ors

The matter comes up on an application (Inward No.1/2019) for early hearing of the case.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally today itself.

The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 05.06.2014 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur in Claim case No.279/2011 whereby the learned tribunal had dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants.

Brief facts necessary to be narrated are that a claim petition was filed by the appellants-claimants contending that on 15.05.2011, the husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 to 7 namely Daulat Ram along with other persons were traveling in a Maruti Van No.GJ-2K-6549. At about 11 PM, on the road near Otala, one Jeep bearing registration No. GJ-09M-3406 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver i.e. respondent No.1 his Jeep dashed with the Maruti Van from behind in which Daulat Ram was sitting. As a result of this accident, the Maruti Van got damaged due to which Daulat Ram and other persons got seriously injured. During the treatment, Daulat Ram died. The appellants lastly prayed for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.30,75,000/- under different heads.

The respondent No.1 & 2 driver and owner of the offending Jeep filed reply to the claim petition and denied that the accident was caused by the Jeep. The respondent No.3 Insurance Company also filed its reply and denied the contentions raised in the claim petition. The issues were framed by the learned tribunal for adjudication of the claim petition. After completion of the pleading and hearing both the parties, the learned tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants vide its judgment dated 05.06.2014 holding that the respondents are not liable to compensate the appellants as the fact of accident being caused by the offending Jeep No.GJ-09M-3406 is not proved. Hence, this appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that the Maruti Van was plying on a single road and the same was hit from behind by the Jeep No.GJ-09M-3406. Since collision was not with great impact, however, it was sufficient to derail the Maruti Van from the main track resulting into overturning of the Van into pit on the side of the road. He further submits that the cause of accident was collision of the Jeep on the rear side of the Maruti Van resulting into the tumbling of the Maruti Van into a pit on the road side. Daulat Ram died because of the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by its driver.

Learned counsel further submits that mechanical inspection report says that the Maruti Van was damaged from the side mirror, front as well as from top. He further submits that the factum of the accident is conclusively proved as the charge sheet against the owner and driver of the offending Jeep No.GJ-09M-3406 has been filed by the police. The counsel submits that the tribunal has not appreciated the facts in correct perspective and therefore, erred in passing the judgment impugned.

Per contra, Mr. Sanjeev Johari appearing on behalf of the respondents while supporting the judgment impugned submits that the tribunal has taken into consideration all the relevant facts and evidence brought on record and rightly came to the conclusion that the fact regarding accident by the offending vehicle is not proved. He further submits that if the version of the appellants is taken to be true on its face value, there must be some damage to the Maruti Van on the rear side in which deceased Daulat Ram was travelling and the offending Jeep No.GJ-09M-3406 should have been damaged from its front side. It is also submitted that the mechanical report placed on record shows that neither the Maruti Van was damaged from the rear side nor the Jeep was having any semblance or suffered any damage in the accident on the front side, therefore, the theory projected by the appellants is baseless as the factum of accident with the offending Jeep is not proved.

Having considered the submissions made at the bar and upon perusal of the record, the finding recorded by the learned tribunal which is reproduced as under appears to be just and proper and the same is upheld:-

"अतः इस प्रकार प्रकरण में प्रार्थीगण की साक्ष्य यह है कि जब मृतक दौलतराम मारूति वेन में बैठकर जा रहा था तो जीप नंबर जी.जे.09 यू.ए. 3406 के चालक ने अपनी जीप को तेज गति, लापरवाही से चलाकर मारूति वेन को पीछे से टक्कर मार दी जिससे मारूति वेन खड्डे में गिर गई जिससे दौलतराम की मृत्यु हो गई। इस साक्ष्य के विपरीत अप्रार्थीगण की ओर से कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं हुई है परंतु पत्रावली के अवलोकन से यह प्रतीत होता है कि संभवतः ऐसी कोई दुर्घटना कारित ही नहीं हुई कि जीप द्वारा मारूति वेन को पीछे से टक्कर मारी गई हो। ए.डब्ल्यु 2 दीपक का कहना है कि जिस मारूति वेन में उसके पिता बैठे हुए थे उस मारूति वेन के चालक व मालिक को पार्टी नहीं बनाया गया है। इसी प्रकार ए.डब्ल्यु 1 प्रार्थीया श्रीमती हन्तोक का प्रति परीक्षण में कहना है कि उपयुक्त मारूति वेन उसके जेठ के लड़के राजेन्द्र कुमार की थी। यहां यह भी उल्लेखनीय है कि उक्त राजेन्द्र कुमार मारूति वेन के चालक को साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है। इसके अतिरिक्त मारूति वेन के मेकेनिकल मुआयना रिपोर्ट प्रदर्ष 6 में इस बात का कोई उल्लेख नहीं है कि मारूति वेन पीछे से क्षतिग्रस्त हो। यदि जीप द्वारा मारूति वेन को पीछे से टक्कर मारी गई होती तो अवष्य ही मारूति वेन पीछे से क्षतिग्रस्त होती जबकि यह मारूति वेन आगे की तरफ से व छत की तरफ से क्षतिग्रस्त हुई है। इसी प्रकार जीप की मेकेनिकल मुआयना रिपोर्ट प्रदर्ष 9 के अवलोकन से प्रतीत होता है कि उपर्युक्त जीप में कोई डेमेज नहीं बताया गया है और न ही कोई तकनीकी खराबी पायी गई है। यहां तक कि हेड लाईट भी सही रूप से लगी हुई है। यदि जीप से मारूति वेन की टक्कर हुई होती तो अवष्य जीप में आगे से क्षति हुई होती जबकि उपर्युक्त जीप में कोई क्षति नहीं दर्शाई गई है। अतः इन परिस्थितियों में पत्रावली पर ऐसी लेष मात्र साक्ष्य नहीं है जिससे यह प्रतीत हो सके कि जीप नंबर जी.जे. 09 यु.ए.3406 के चालक द्वारा मारूति वेन को पीछे से टक्कर मारी गई हो जिससे मारूति वेन पीछे से क्षतिग्रस्त हुई है। उपर्युक्त दुर्घटना का फौजदारी प्रकरण संख्या 902/2011 ग्राम न्यायालय बिछीवाडा में लंबित है जिसमें आज ही तारीख पेशी है जिसमें जानकारी ली गई तो पता चला कि कुल 09 गवाहान के बयान लेखबद्ध हो चुके है जिसमें से इस घटना का फरियादी पी.डब्ल्यु 7 राजेन्द्र कुमार पक्षद्रोही हो चुका है। इसी प्रकार उपर्युक्त फौजदारी प्रकरण में लेखबद्ध अन्य गवाहान में चष्मदीद गवाह पी.डब्ल्यु 3 विश्राम, पी.डब्ल्यु 8 शांतिलाल व अन्य गवाहान भी पक्षद्रोही घोषित हो चुके है। मारूति वेन का क्षतिग्रस्त होना और मारूति वेन में बैठे हुए दौलतराम की मृत्यु होना तो सिद्ध होता है परन्तु मारूति वेन के चालक, स्वामी, बीमा कंपनी के विरूद्ध यह याचिका प्रस्तुत नहीं की गई है और न ही उन्हें पक्षकार बनाया गया है। यहां यह उल्लेखनीय है कि प्रार्थीगण तथा अप्रार्थी जीप चालक पुलिस थाना बिछीवाडा के एक ही क्षेत्र के निवासी है। यहां यह भी उल्लेखनीय है कि मृतक दौलतराम जिसके संबंध में क्षतिपूर्ति मांगी गई है राजकीय सेवामें कार्यरत होकर लगभग 50 से 60 वर्ष के बीच का व्यक्ति था तथा उसकी मृत्यु के उपरांत ए.डब्ल्यु 1 की प्रति परीक्षा के अनुसार अनुकंपात्मक नौकरी के लिये मृतक के पुत्र ने आवेदन कर रखा है और प्रार्थीगण को मृतक की पेंषन प्राप्त हो रही है।"

The facts narrated above clearly show that if the Maruti Van was plying on the single road and if it was hit from behind by the Jeep then naturally the offending vehicle i.e. Jeep must have suffered some damage on the front side and in the same way, the Maruti Van must have suffered some damages on the rear side whereas the Maruti Van is found to have suffered damage from the front and top portion. Not only this, the offending Jeep on having been inspected does not show any sign of damage caused to it on the front side. This Court is also not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that the Maruti Van was hit with a lesser force and less impact from behind by the Jeep therefore, there is no damage. However, he submits that the impact was sufficient to imbalance the Maruti Van resulting into the overturning and tumbling of the same in the potholes on the road side. This argument is noted to be rejected in view of the mechanical instructions report and the discussions made in the preceding para.

In view of the discussions made above, the appeal lacks merit. The same is hereby, dismissed and finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal is upheld.