AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J
This appeal from order arises out of the order dated 18.04.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal in
MACP No. 63 of 2011, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants has been dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that on 02.09.2011 at about 09:00 P.M., when Manish (deceased) was coming from Durgapur market, and walking
towards his home, a tractor bearing Registration No. UK-12CB-0248 which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, first hit the
motorcycle which was standing on the roadside and then Manish, who was walking down the road. As a result of this accident, Manish sustained
grievous injuries. He was thereafter taken to Combined Government Hospital, Kotdwar, where he was declared dead by the doctors.
On account of the death of Manish in the accident, a claim petition was filed by his parents. It was stated in the claim petition that the deceased
was 18 years of age at the time of his death. He was a student and was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- by giving tuitions. An amount of
Rs.45,50,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakh Fifty Thousand only) was claimed by the claimants as compensation.
Written statements were filed by the insurance company and the driver/owner of the tractor contesting the claim petition.
On the basis of pleadings of the rival parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
“1. Whether on 2.9.2011 at about 09:00 P.M., Tractor bearing registration No. UK-12CB-0248 which was being driven by its driver rashly and
negligently first hit the motorcycle standing on the roadside and then hit Manish who was walking on the road, and as a result of this accident Manish
died due to injuries sustained by him?
Whether on the date of accident all the papers of the vehicle in question, including the driving licence were not valid and the vehicle was not being
driven in terms of the insurance policy?
Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation? If yes, then to what extent and from which of the parties?
Whether on the date of accident, respondent no. 2 was driving the vehicle bearing registration no. UK-12CB-0248?
Whether the claim petition is bad due to non-joinder of owner of the motorcycle and its insurance company, as stated in para 16 of the written
statement of respondent no. 2?â€
After considering each and every aspect of the matter, the Tribunal rejected the claim petition vide order dated 18.04.2015. Aggrieved, the
claimants have filed the present appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
There are certain glaring anomalies which have come out in the claim petition of the appellants which are that though the incident is of 02.09.2011
at about 09:00 P.M., which allegedly occurred at Durgapur Market, Kotdwar, but the first information report of this incident was lodged on 13.09.2011
at Police Station Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. Not only there is a belated FIR, but in the FIR it has been stated by the father of the deceased that
his son who was 18 years of age was driving a motorcycle which had an accident with a tractor, bearing registration no. UK 12CB-0248.
All the same, when the claim petition was filed by the claimants an entirely different picture was given by the claimants, which now stated that the
deceased was not driving the motorcycle but was merely walking on the street when this accident happened and he was crushed by the tractor. The
original stand (as given in the FIR), could not be set up before the Tribunal for the reason, which is very obvious, that the deceased was not having a
driving licence to drive the motorcycle. The learned Tribunal has rejected the claim petition of the claimants/appellants.
Although findings have been recorded by the Tribunal that the tractor was not even insured at that time as by the time the accident had taken
place, the insurance had lapsed, however, these findings are of no help to the claimants, as the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the so
called tractor was not involved in the accident.
Even if we appreciate the claim of the claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 i.e. on “no fault liabilityâ€, it cannot be
done, inasmuch as, there is no involvement of a vehicle in the accident in the present case as the claim which has been set up by the claimants is that
the deceased was walking down the road at the time of accident and this could also not been established before the Tribunal that the concerned
Tractor was ever involved in the accident. PW 2 Anand Singh, who is said to be the only so-called eyewitness of the incident has said that he came to
the spot after 10 minutes of the accident and though he has referred to the involvement of a tractor in the accident, but he has stated that prior to his
reaching the spot, the driver of the tractor had already run away from the spot.
Under these circumstances, no fault can be found with the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Consequently the appeal fails and it is
hereby dismissed.