Partly allowed

Singari Devi v. Usman Khan

Rajasthan HC3 Dec 2013CMA/291/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing the claimant's application for compensation due to alleged non-involvement of the vehicle. The High Court held the Tribunal's finding perverse based on their site map and owner's statement, allowing the appeal on this issue and remanding the case for deciding negligence and compensation within three months.

What did the court decide?

The finding of non-involvement is set aside. The claim case is remanded to the Tribunal to decide issues of negligence, defenses, and quantum of compensation within three months.

Singari Devi Vs Usman Khan — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

AT JODHPUR

¶4

: J U D G M E N T :

¶5

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 291/2001

Singari Devi & Ors.

Vs.

Usman Khan & Ors.

Date of Judgment :: 3.12.2013

¶10

PRESENT

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶12

Mr. Rajesh Panwar, for the appellant/s. Mr. Sunil Mehta, for the respondent-Insurance Company.

¶13

BY THE COURT:

¶14

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22.11.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application for compensation ('the application') filed by the claimants.

¶15

Brief facts of the case may be noticed thus : it was claimed in the application that one Hukma Ram was going on the road for fatching milk when the bus bearing registration No.RJ10P-1415, which was being driven by Usman Khan rashly and negligently collided with said Hukma Ram, which resulted into his death. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,90,000/- for the death of said Hukma Ram.

¶16

¶17

No reply to the application was filed by the driver and owner of the bus. However, the Insurance Company filed its reply and contested the averments made in the application.

¶18

The Tribunal framed four issues and while considering the issue relating to involvement of the vehicle and negligence of the driver, it came to the conclusion that the claimants have failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle and consequently, without deciding the issue relating to negligence and quantum of compensation dismissed the application by its impugned judgment.

¶19

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the findings recorded by the Tribunal is ex-facie incorrect, inasmuch as it was nobody's case that the vehicle in question was not involved. A reply to the application was not filed by the owner and the driver of the vehicle and only reply filed was that by the Insurance Company which disputed the negligence and did not dispute the involvement of the vehicle. Further the documents produced relating to the criminal proceedings which included the site map and the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 ('the Act') clearly established the involvement of the vehicle and the fact that the respondent No.1 Usman Khan was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident. It was submitted that the finding being wholly perverse, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the oral evidence led by the claimants does not prove anything and the documents produced by them have not

¶21

¶22

been properly proved and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in recording the findings regarding non-involvement of the vehicle, which does not call for any interference.

¶23

I have considered the rival submissions.

¶24

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that no reply was filed by either the driver-Usman Khan or owner-Mahendra Singh Bhati and the only reply filed was that by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company in reply to para No.27 of the application though did not dispute the involvement of the vehicle took a plea that the driver was not negligent and also disputed the police proceedings. In the additional pleas, it was submitted that the driver – Usman Khan was not in possession of valid driving licence and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation.

¶25

The claimants while leading their evidence inter-alia proved the Police Challan (Ex.-1), FIR (Ex.-2), Postmortem Report (Ex.-3), Site Map (Ex.-4), Notice u/s. 133 of the Act (Ex.5) and all other relevant documents. From a perusal of the site map, it is apparent that the said bus bearing Registration No.RJ-10P-1415 was found available on the spot of accident and in reply to the notice under Section 133 of the Act, the ownerMahendra Singh Bhati clearly stated that the vehicle was being driven by Usman Khan at the relevant time. In view of the said two documents Ex.-4 and Ex.-5, it is clearly established that the vehicle in question i.e. RJ-10P-1415 was involved in the accident and the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard is ex-facie baseless.

¶26

¶27

So far as reliance on the certified copies of documents prepared by the police regarding criminal proceedings is concerned, the same are admissible and need not be proved by calling a witness or the person who prepared it in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of RSRTC v. Devilal : 1991 ACJ 230.

¶28

As the Tribunal has not decided the issue relating to negligence of the driver, defence raised by the Insurance Company and quantum of compensation, the matter needs to be remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the said issues.

¶29

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The finding on issue relating to involvement of the bus and judgment dated 22.11.2000 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The Claim Case No.69/98 is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the issues relating to negligence, defence raised by the Insurance Company and quantum of compensation.

¶30

As the matter relates to an accident, which occurred 15 years back, it is directed that the Tribunal shall decide the same based on the material available on record within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the record from this Court. The parties are directed to remain present before the Tribunal on 2.1.2014 .

¶31

The record be sent back to the Tribunal immediately.

¶32

(ARUN BHANSALI), J.

¶33

rm/

Singari Devi v. Usman Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Singari Devi v. Usman Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Ram G.I.C.Ltd. Vs Smt. Mukesh Kanwar and Ors.

C.T.O. Circle, Sirohi Vs M/S Morigar Cement Agencies

C.T.O. Circle B, Bhilwara Vs M/S Super Telecom Limited

Udai Lal Vs Nanu Ram and Ors.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Puran Mal and Ors.

United India Insurance Company Vs Udaram and Ors.