Trishla Devi & Others vs Vikki & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

This appeal from order has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 05.12.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vikasnagar, Dehradun in MACP No. 67 of 2013, whereby a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on "No Fault Liability" has been awarded to the claimants.

Brief facts of the case are that on 13.03.2013 one Gyan Chand (deceased) was coming to his home on his motorcycle bearing registration no. U.P.-11R-1097 from "Ponta Sahib". At about 05:00 p.m., when the deceased reached near "Praveen Dhaba" at Village Shahpur, a truck bearing registration no. H.R.-69-7277 which was coming from "Dharmawala" and which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver on the wrong side, hit the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of this, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died.

A claim petition was filed by the claimants for the compensation of Rs.33,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh only) on account of death of Sri Gyan Chand in a motor accident. It was alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was working as Assistant Lineman in Electricity Department in Himachal Pradesh. He was the sole bread winner of the family and due to his death, the claimants have suffered financial and mental loss.

Written statements were filed by the owner and the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, as well as by the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured.

On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether on 13.3.2013 when the deceased Gyan Chand was coming to his home on his motorcycle bearing registration no. UP-11R-1097, then at about 05:00 P.M. as soon as he reached near Praveen Dhaba at Village Shahpur, on Shimla Bypass Road, a truck bearing registration no. HR-69-7277 which was coming from the side of Dharmawala and was being driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side hit the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and died?

Whether the claim petition is barred by non-joinder of parties?

Whether on the date of accident, vehicle no.HR-69-7277 was being driven without valid documents and in violation of the insurance policy?

Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation? If yes, then from which of the parties and to what extent?"

While deciding the claim petition, the learned Tribunal recorded the finding that it has come in the evidence that the witness who is mentioned in the first information report, namely, Narendra Saini and who is said to be the eyewitness to the incident, is actually not an eyewitness. The learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that false statement has been made by this witness i.e. P.W. 3 Narendra Saini.

This finding has been recorded by the learned Tribunal on the basis that in the criminal case this witness has not been named by the Investigating Officer as a witness in the charge-sheet filed by the police and he was not produced before the court as a witness in the criminal case. On the above ground, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question had occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself. Consequently, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on "No Fault Liability".

Aggrieved, the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement.

Perused the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. After perusal of the award, this Court, however, is of the view that learned Tribunal has failed to consider the other evidences available on record, which could prove as to who was at fault in causing the accident in question. The claim ought not to have been rejected on the sole testimony of one witness.

In view of the above, the order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vikasnagar, Dehradun is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the concerned Tribunal to decide the case afresh, as expeditiously as possible considering that it is an old matter, but definitely within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

In view of the above observations and directions, the appeal from order stands disposed.