AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellant has filed this misc. appeal being aggrieved by award dated 03/08/2018 passed in claim case number 98/2016. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,00,270/- in favour of respondents No.1 to 4.
Appellant has challenged the award on the ground that vehicle No. MP-20-BA-0226 was falsely involved in the accident after about 23 days of the accident. Earlier it was stated in police investigation that body of victim was found by the side of the road and after about 23 days vehicle No. MP-20-BA-0226 was planted and shown in the FIR to have caused the accident. Owner of the vehicle is in hand in glove with the claimants and Claims Tribunal committed an error in fixing the liability to pay the compensation amount on appellant-insurance company. Insurance company has also taken the ground that driver was not having a valid driving license and was not having permit to drive the vehicle. It has also been stated that there was no fitness certificate of the vehicle.
Appellant company lead no evidence regarding want of driving license, fitness certificate, and permit, Claims Tribunal rightly answered the question in negative. The only question which remains to be decided in this appeal is weather vehicle No. MP-20-BA-0226 was falsely planted in the accident to get compensation amount from the insurance company?
Brief facts of the case are that on 13/06/2016, at about 8 PM, accident occurred and vehicle hit the deceased Mahesh Kachhi, who was going on his bicycle. Deceased was an agriculturist and was a vegetable grower and also used to sell milk. Claim of Rs.32 lakhs along with interest of 15% was claimed by the legal hairs of the deceased. FIR of accident was lodged on 06/07/2016. There was a delay of considerable time in filing of FIR. Claimants have examined witnesses, viz., AW1 Kamlabai Kachhi, the wife of the deceased and AW2 one Sharda Patel. AW-2 Sharda Patel was presented as eyewitness of the incident. Learned Claims Tribunal believed the version of Sharda Patel that vehicle No. MP-20-BA-0226 caused the accident. Said vehicle was insured with appellant-insurance company.
During investigation, police prepared documents like Marg Intimation Ex A-3, Naksha Panchayatnama Ex.A-6 and Post-mortem report Ex.A-10. Said documents reflect that dead body of deceased Mahesh Patel was brought to the hospital by his brother Prahlad Patel. Documents also reflect that Prahlad Patel along with wardboy Hemraj went to police station to lodge FIR. In these documents, it was informed to police by the brother of deceased that body of Mahesh Patel was found by the side of road. Nothing has been said regarding involvement of vehicle No. MP-20-BA-0226 in the accident. The mention of vehicle was made in the FIR, which was lodged by the police on 06/07/2016. In the FIR, it has been stated that dead body of deceased was found by the side of the road. However, in introduction to the FIR by writer of FIR, it has been stated that during marg enquiry, statement of Mohan Patel and Vinod Patel was recorded and statements of eyewitnesses were also recorded, who had stated that a vehicle of green colour bearing No. MP-20-BA-0226 had caused the accident. To establish the case of accident by said vehicle, claimants examined two witnesses Kamlabai Patel and Sharda Patel. It is clear that there is delay in lodging of FIR, but, whether delay alone is sufficient to disbelieve the FIR regarding involvement of vehicle in the case. Delay itself will not be enough to discredit the case of claimants if there is trustworthy evidence by the witnesses. Now, it has to be seen whether deposition of witnesses inspire confidence to overlook the documents prepared by the prosecution during investigation and relied by claimants to establish occurrence of accident which says that dead body of deceased was found by the side of the road and no mention of the vehicle which caused accident was made.
AW1 Kamlabai Kachhi deposed before the Court that she later on learnt that her husband died in accident. She was informed about the accident by her devar (brother-in-law) Prahlad on phone. She deposed that she never went to the site of the accident and her devar went at the site of accident. Contrary to the deposition made by Kamlabai, eye witness-Sharda deposed that Kamlabai came to the site of the accident. He also deposed that devar of Kamlabai namely Prahlad never came on the spot of accident. The version of both the witnesses are contradictory to each other. AW-2, who presents himself to be eyewitness of the accident, did not disclose registration number of vehicle to the police for a considerable long time. Claimants have not filed the documents i.e. statement of Sharda Patel made during inquest to police or statement under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which can tell the date when this eyewitness informed the police about the registration number of the vehicle. In his deposition, Sharda Patel said that he informed the vehicle number to brother of deceased namely Vinod on 13/06/2016. Claimants did not examine Vinod Patel before the Claims Tribunal. Another eyewitness of the accident namely Kamla Patel was also not presented before the Claims Tribunal for proving the involvement of the offending vehicle. AW-1 Kamlabai said that Kamla Patel and Sharda Patel had informed his devar Prahlad Patel on phone regarding the accident. Sharda Patel is not credible and Kamla Patel has not been examined by the claimants before the Claims Tribunal. Claimants have filed vehicle inspection report as Ex. A-14. As per this inspection report, body of the vehicle was found to be proper. There is no mention of any dent or scratch marks on the vehicle or discolouration in any place due to accident. This shows that vehicle No. MP-20-BA-0226 did not hit the deceased as described by the witnesses. Documents of investigation, deposition of witnesses and non-examination of important eyewitnesses dents the story of the claimants. Deposition of eyewitness also does not inspire confidence of this Court, coupled with the fact that there is delay in lodging of FIR and initial documents prepared by Investigating Officer shows that dead body was found by the side of the road and same was prepared in presence of Prahlad Patel. As per deposition of Kamlabai Patel, Prahlad Patel was informed about the accident by eyewitnesses.
In view of aforesaid evidence available on record, it is clear that vehicle No. MP-20-BA-0226 was planted in the case to have caused the incident because either accident has been caused by unnamed vehicle or the vehicle which caused the accident was not insured. Whatever may be the cause for planting the vehicle, but the practice of claimants to plant vehicles in accident with the help of owner of vehicle and police personel is highly deprecated and strict action is called for against such persons.
Claims Tribunal has further committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for cross examination of Investigating Officer, who had prepared the final report. Appellant had not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting their application for cross-examination of Investigating Officer.
In view of aforesaid evidence available on record, claimants-respondent No. 1 to 4 have failed to prove that accident occurred from vehicle No. MP-20-BA-0226. Appellant-insurance company succeeds in this appeal and the same is allowed. Impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal dated 03/08/2018 in claim case No. 98/2016 is set aside.