Allowed

Union of India v. Smt Munni Devi and Another

Rajasthan HC11 Jul 2018CMA/2446/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's award. The Court reversed the finding on issue no.1, deciding it against the claimant, and consequently dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant regarding a fatal motor accident involving a train and a tractor.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed, the impugned award of the Tribunal dated 18.08.2010 is set aside, and the claim petition filed by the claimant is dismissed.

Union of India Vs Smt Munni Devi and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2446/2010

¶4

Union of India through Divisional Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur.

¶5

----Appellant/Non-Claimant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Munni Devi Sharma W/o shri Radhey Shyam Sharma, B/c Brahmin, R/o Jatwada Khurd, District Sawai madhopur (Raj.)

¶8

----Respondent/Claimant

¶9

Radhey Shyam Sharma S/o Shri Ladhu Ram Sharma, R/o Jatwada Khurd, District Sawai madhopur (Raj.) Owner of Tractor No. RJD-4470.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. D.S. Poonia

¶12

For Respondents : Mr. Nitesh Rawat

¶13

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶14

Order

¶15

11/07/2018

¶16

Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 18.08.2010 passed by the Tribunal, whereby, claim petition filed by the claimant, was allowed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was in-ordinate delay of four years and five months in filing the claim petition. Immediately, after the accident FIR was lodged by NAW-2 Amarjeet Singh. The accident was duly investigated by the police and it transpired that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of deceased Vinod Kumar himself.

¶18

Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the claimant had been successful in establishing her case. The delay in filing the claim petition was not material. The delay had occurred as the claimant was an illiterate

¶19

(2 of 3 )

¶20

woman.

¶21

Claimant had filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Vinod Kumar in the accident which had occurred on 31.07.2002.

¶22

It was the case of the claimant that Vinod Kumar was driving the tractor on the day of the accident. There was an unmanned railway crossing at the spot. While Vinod Kumar was crossing the railway line, tractor was hit by the train and as a result, Vinod Kumar as well as the other person traveling on the tractor had died.

¶23

AW-2 Devkaran has deposed that on 31.07.2002, he had witnessed the accident. While the tractor on which two persons were traveling, was crossing railway line, it was hit by the train. As a result, both the persons traveling on the tractor had died.

¶24

In rebuttal, NAW-1 Hari Narayan deposed that he was the driver of the train-in-question on 31.07.2002. He had blown horn. Despite the said fact tractor had started crossing the railway line and had struck against the train. The tractor driver had died on account of his own negligence.

¶25

NAW-2 Amarjeet Singh deposed that on 31.07.2002, he was working as a guard on the train-in-question. A tractor had started crossing the railway line and as a result the engine of the train had struck against the tractor. He had lodged the report with regard to the accident with the police.

¶26

Exhibit-1 is the FIR got registered by Amarjeet Singh with regard to the accident-in-question on 31.07.2002. A perusal of Exhibit-4 reveals that on police investigation, it transpired that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Vinod Kumar, while driving the tractor and the proceedings were dropped

¶27

(3 of 3 )

¶28

as Vinod Kumar had died in the accident. The said proceedings were concluded in August 2002. However, the claim petition was filed in February 2006.

¶29

So far as AW-2 Devkaran is concerned, his statement fails to inspire confidence as the said witness had not lodged the report with the police. The said witness deposed in his cross-examination that he did not know the name of the deceased. He had been brought to the court by Radhey Shyam. Radhey Shyam is the owner of the tractor-in-question and was proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. In case, the said witness had actually witnessed the accident, he would have joined the police proceedings. The said witness in his cross-examination has stated that his statement was not recorded by the police.

¶30

In the facts of the present case, statement of AW-2 fails to inspire confidence. It appears that he was introduced as an eyewitness at a later stage by the claimant to get compensation inconnivance with respondent Radhey Shyam, owner of the tractor. Hence, the Tribunal had erred in deciding issue no.1 in favour of the claimant.

¶31

Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal on issue no.1 is reversed and the said issue is decided against the claimant. Hence, the claim petition filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 18.08.2010 passed by the Tribunal, is set aside. Consequently, the claim petition filed by the claimant, is dismissed.

¶33

(SABINA)J.

¶34

Mohita/49

Union of India v. Smt Munni Devi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Smt Munni Devi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Soni and Anr. Vs Manoj Gaur Anr.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Poonam and Ors.

Trilok Singh and Ors. Vs Kaushalya Devi and Ors.

Mahavir Vs Babu Lal and Others

Chief Secretary, Govt.of Raj a Vs Smt Prem Lata Doriya and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Aktar Mehrat and Ors.