Jamuli Marandi @ Barki Devi And Others vs Shyam Sunder Ray And Others

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Appellants are the Claimants who have preferred the instant appeal against the dismissal of Claim Case No. 7 of 2003 by the learned 5th Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Giridih.

Brief facts of the case can be summarized as below:

(a) As per the claim application filed on 17.1.2003 by the widow of the deceased and her four minor children, deceased Budhu Marandi met with a motor vehicle accident on 1.2.2002 with an accident involving Tractor No. BR-23A-1266 when he was going along with his wife Jamuli Marandi @ Barki Devi (Claimant no.1). It is said the tractor bearing registration no. BR-23-A-1266 and trailer no. BR-23 A -1267 caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver when it dashed Budhu Marandi and one Jagdish Soren. Deceased died on spot.

(b) Giridih (Muffasil) P.S Case No.26/2002 was registered on 02.02.2002 under Section 302/34 of the IPC (Ext.-1) on the basis of the statement of Chowkidar Baldeo Turi. The fardbeyan disclosed that on information being received from a passing convoy, the police party went to the place of occurrence and found that two persons were lying in unconscious state with a bicycle lying there. One of them was having a sharp cut injury on his head appearing to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon.

(c) On 27.7.2002 Complaint Case No. 943/2002 under Sections 279,337 304 A (Ext.-2) was filed by claimant no.1 against one Hari Hansda on 27.7.2002 which was forwarded institution of case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. This case was tagged with Girdidh (M) P.S. Case No. 26/2002 and later on the police case was converted into case under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the IPC. In this case the charge-sheet was filed against Ratan Rai.

(d) As per the Post Mortem Report (Ext.-4) the cause of death was head injury shock and haemorrhage.

(e) From Ext B it appears that the driver Ratan Rai has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of IPC in G.R. No. 796 of 2002 by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih.

The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application while disbelieving the claimants’ version of the case that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident involving Tractor No. BR-23 A-1266. The instant claim case suffers from several infirmities and casts serious doubts on the claimants’ case. It has been asserted in the claim application that claimant No. 1 was accompanying her husband at the time of accident and was hit by the offending tractor. The FIR (Ext.1) which was registered immediately after the accident does not mention about the presence of Claimant No. 1 at the place of occurrence. She did not come forward after the accident to lodge case before the police. The accident took place on 01.02.2002 whereas the complaint petition was filed on 27.07.2002 impleading the owner and driver of the said offending tractor and its Insurer. The claimants’ version has been contradicted by C.W.2 who has deposed that he along with Jagdish Soren and Buddu were coming and there was no other person at the time of accident with them. Thus, the presence of the claimants is ruled out by her own witness. The complaint case was filed against the driver Harish Hansda but the charge sheet in Giridih (M) P.S. Case No.26/2002 has been filed (Ext.-5) against Ratan Rai.

In view of these flagrant contradictions noted by the learned Tribunal, I do not find any infirmity in the order of dismissal of the claim application.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.