The New India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Roshani Yadav & Ors.

This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the award dated 22.05.2024 passed by 22nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in MACC No.1546/2020.

That, the brief facts of the case is that on 01.01.2020 at about 16:30 hrs., deceased was going to Bahoriband by way of Jharauli Pakar Road. As and when, he reached near the turn the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. MP-21L-1508 driven by respondent No.7 in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed hit the deceased, due to which he fall on the ground and sustained severe injuries. He was brought to the Government Hospital, Bahoriband, from where he was referred to the Medical Hospital, Jabalpur. He died during course of treatment. After the postmortem, dead body was handed over to thefamily of the deceased. Matter was reported to the Bahoriband Police Station upon which the FIR bearing Crime No. 35/2020 was registered under Section 279 & 304A of IPC.

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the present appeal has been preferred on the following two grounds. Firstly, it was contended that Ex. D/3, the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, which was produced on behalf of respondent No. 7, was not issued by the Regional Transport Office (RTO), Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. This fact, according to the appellant, was duly proved through the testimony of NAW-1, Shri Vikas Vishwakarma, Administrative Officer of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. He categorically deposed that Driving Licence Ex. D/3 had not been issued in the name of Nandu Tiwari. Rather, the licence pertained to one Aandu Tiwari. It was, therefore, submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, resulting in a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

Secondly, learned Senior Counsel submitted that, at the time of the accident, the deceased was riding a motorcycle with two pillion riders. It was, therefore, prima facie established that the deceased had also contributed to the occurrence of the accident. However, the learned Tribunal failed to consider the aspect of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased while adjudicating the claim.

It was further submitted that the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged after an unexplained delay of 24 days. Such inordinate delay casts serious doubt on the prosecution version and the claim itself. Despite this material aspect, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate its legal effect while passing the impugned award.

Per contra, Shri Anand Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 (owner of the offending vehicle), submitted that no official from the Regional Transport Office, Hazaribagh, was examined to prove that Driving Licence Ex. D/3 was not genuine. It was argued that the genuineness or otherwise of the driving licence could have been established only by examining the competent authority from the concerned RTO. Mere production of Ex. D/3 and the testimony of the Insurance Company's witness are insufficient to conclusively establish that the licence was fake. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal has dealt with this issue in detail in paragraph 18 of the impugned award.

Per contra, Shri Vinit Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 5, submitted that the learned Tribunal has elaborately considered and discussed the issues involved in paragraph 13 of the impugned award and has recorded well-reasoned findings based on the evidence available on record.

Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Hazaribagh, was not examined before the Tribunal with regard to Ex. D/3. In the absence of the examination of the RTO, Hazaribagh, this Court cannot place reliance upon Ex. D/3. The Tribunal has rightly held that, in the absence of evidence from the concerned RTO, no conclusion can be drawn that the driving licence was fake. It was incumbent upon the appellant–Insurance Company to examine the concerned RTO in support of its plea. Therefore, the testimony of Vikas Vishwakarma (NAW-1), Administrative Officer of The New India Assurance Company Limited, by itself is insufficient to establish that the driving licence was fake.

As regards the second contention, namely that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased merely because three persons were travelling on the motorcycle, this Court is unable to draw such a conclusion. The mere fact that three persons were riding the motorcycle does not, by itself, establish that the deceased was negligent or that such act contributed to the occurrence of the accident.

It is also pertinent to note that Crime No. 35/2020 was registered against the driver of Auto No. MP-21-L-1508. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Agency prima facie found that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Non-Applicant No. 3, Nandu Tiwari. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of Non-Applicant No. 3, Nandu Tiwari.

With regard to the contention that the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged after a delay of 24 days from the date of the incident, a perusal of the record reveals that a marg intimation was registered on the very date of the incident, and only after completion of the inquiry pursuant thereto was the FIR registered on 24.01.2020. Accordingly, the said contention is devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected.

Apart from the above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and Others, (2011) 4 SCC 693, has held in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 as under :

In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.