Dismissed

Nandlal v. Mahaveer Synthetics and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Aug 2019CMA/466/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals filed by the father and the deceased son's mother against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing compensation claims. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that claimants failed to prove the respondent's vehicle was involved in the accident due to lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in testimonies.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals were dismissed with no compensation awarded.

Nandlal Vs Mahaveer Synthetics and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 467/2001

¶4

Nandlal S/o Bhuralal Samdani

¶5

Mst. Durga Devi W/o Nandlal Samdani, R/o R.C. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara.

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mahaveer Synthetics through its proprietor, Tej Singh Chordia S/o Shantilal Chordia, Ajad Chowk, Bhilwara.

¶9

Gauttam S/o Bhanwarlal Chordia through Bhanwarlal Chordia, Chartered Accountant, Ajad Chowk, Bhilwara.

¶10

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Bhilwara.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 466/2001

¶14

Nandlal S/o Bhuralal Samdani R/o. R.C. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara.

¶15

----Appellant

¶16

Versus

¶17

Mahaveer Synthetics through its proprietor, Tej Singh Chordia S/o Shantilal Chordia, Ajad Chowk, Bhilwara.

¶18

Gauttam S/o Bhanwarlal Chordia through Bhanwarlal Chordia, Chartered Accountant, Ajad Chowk, Bhilwara.

¶19

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Bhilwara.

¶20

----Respondent

¶21

For Appellants	: Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat
For Respondents	: Mr. M.P. Goswami for
	Mr. Anil Bachhawat, Mr. Usman Gani Mr. P. Nayak.

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶23

Judgment

¶24

08/08/2019

¶25

The present misc. appeals arise out of the same accident involving similar facts, therefore, they are being decided together by this common judgment.

¶26

Appeal No.467/2001 arises out of the MACT Claim Case No. 456/94 decided on 09/01/2001 for the payment of compensation on account of the death of Anil who was the son of the appellants,

¶27

(2 of 8)

¶28

[CMA-467/2001]

¶29

whereas Appeal No. 466/2001 arises out of the MACT Claim Case No.457/1994 decided on 09/01/2001 wherein the appellant Nandlal prayed for compensation to be paid to him for having suffered injuries in the accident.

¶30

In pursuance of the two claim petitions preferred before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara being Claim Case No. 456/94 (for the death of Anil) and 457/94 (for the injuries suffered by Nandlal), learned Tribunal framed seven issues.

¶31

The issue No.1 in both the claim cases read as under :-

¶32

Claim Case No. 456/94

¶33

“1vk;k izkFkhZx.kksa ds iq= dh e`R;q foi{kh la- ,d ds LokfeRo] foi{kh la- 3 ds ikl chfer thi ua- vkj-ts-06@lh& 1218 dks mlds pkyd xksre }kjk mrkoysiu o ykijokgh ls pyk;s tkus ds dkj.k gqbZ \

¶34

--- izkFkhZx.k ”

¶35

Claim Case No. 457/94

¶36

“1vk;k izkFkhZ foi{kh la- ,d ds LokfeRo] foi{kh la- 3 ds ikl chfer thi ua- vkj-ts-06@lh& 1218 dks mlds pkyd xksre }kjk mrkoysiu o ykijokgh ls pyk;s tkus ds dkj.k pksVxzLr gqvk \ --- izkFkhZx.k ”

¶37

The other issues are not being reproduced by this Court for the reason that basically the finding on issue No.1 is only relevant in these two appeals.

¶38

The factual details necessary to be noted in this case are that on 17/07/1994 at about 9 p.m. while the appellant, his son Anil and Smt. Durga Devi (wife of Nandlal) were travelling on a Spark Moped from Sanganeri Gate to R.C. Vyas Colony, they met with an accident in front of the house of Dr. S.K. Sharma. It is stated that they met with an accident from a jeep which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Gauttam. The Moped was being driven by Anil with a normal speed and on the correct side of the road. Immediately after dashing the jeep with the Moped, the driver of the jeep escaped from the scene of accident. Appellant’s son Anil succumbed to the injuries on the spot,

¶39

(3 of 8)

¶40

[CMA-467/2001]

¶41

whereas appellant Nandlal received grievous injuries and was taken to the hospital at Bhilwara. On the next day, he was shifted to the hospital at Ahmedabad where he remained admitted for 20 days. On the said day of incident i.e. on 17/07/1994 at around 10 p.m. Arun Kumar who is the other son of the appellant Nandlal lodged an F.I.R. It was in these circumstances police investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, statement of Smt. Durga was also recorded. The police after investigation filed challan against the driver of the jeep under Sections 279 and 304A IPC but after the trial charges were not found to be proved against the respondent driver i.e. Gauttam and, therefore, he was acquitted in the criminal case.

¶42

The appellants in their claim petitions reiterated that the Moped was driven by Anil on the correct side of the road in the slow speed and because of the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by Gauttam, the accident had taken place resulting into the death of Anil and causing severe injuries to the appellant- Nandlal.

¶43

Before the Tribunal, the pleadings were filed and exchanged between the parties. The appellant Nandlal appeared in the witness box besides other witnesses. The documents of the criminal case were also filed before the learned Tribunal as well as the other relevant documents including the documents relating to insurance of vehicle etc.

¶44

The learned Tribunal after appreciating the entire evidence on record decided the issue No.1 against the appellants holding that it cannot be proved in the circumstances that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by driver of Jeep No.RJ-06/C-1218 and thus the claim petitions were dismissed vide two separate orders of the same date i.e. on 09/01/2001.

¶45

(4 of 8)

¶46

[CMA-467/2001]

¶47

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶48

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that appellant Nandlal who was the eye witness to the accident categorically deposed before learned Tribunal that the moped was being driven by his son Anil on the correct side of the road in a slow speed but the Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-06/C-1218 which was being driven by Gauttam in a rash and negligent manner caused the accident in which Anil died on the spot and he suffered grievous injuries. He further submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this very important eye witness.

¶49

Learned counsel further submitted that since Nandlal was grievously injured and was taken to Ahmedabad hospital for treatment and on regaining consciousness, he recollected the incident which had happened and disclosed the name of driver of the jeep as well as number of the jeep. Therefore, learned Tribunal wrongly discarded testimony of this injured eye witness of the accident.

¶50

He further submitted that the jeep was being driven by Gautam is also fortified from the fact that in the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was given to Shri Tej Singh who stated that on 17/07/1994, Gauttam was driving the jeep which caused the accident. He argued that the learned Tribunal fell in error by relying upon the findings of learned criminal court. He further contended that there was no reason to get influenced by the findings of learned Criminal Court as the proceedings before the claims Tribunal stand on a totally different footing. He, therefore, urged that the findings recorded by learned Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside and the claim

¶51

(5 of 8)

¶52

[CMA-467/2001]

¶53

petitions of the appellants may be allowed by awarding a suitable compensation in the matter.

¶54

Per contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated the entire material placed on record and rightly came to the conclusion that the accident was not caused by Jeep No.RJ-06/C-1218 and thus, the issue No.1 was rightly decided against the appellants-claimants. He further submitted that the findings of fact arrived at by learned Tribunal are after due appreciation of the statements and evidence recorded before it. There is no question of any influence of the findings of learned Criminal Court as they are only having persuasive value and, therefore, no wrong has been committed by learned Tribunal considering the findings of the Criminal Court.

¶55

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the record of the learned Tribunal.

¶56

True it is that the appellants have lost their son Anil in the accident on 17/07/1994. The fact remains that the accident had occurred on the fateful day but it is necessary to prove involvement of the vehicle with which the accident has taken place.

¶57

The facts narrated above disclose that on 17/07/1994, it was around 9 p.m. when the appellants’ Moped met with an accident with the offending vehicle i.e. Jeep. I am of the view that the best witness in the present set of facts would have been Smt. Durga who is the wife of the appellant Nandlal and mother of the deceased Anil. More particularly, when she had not sustained any injuries. Surprisingly, she had not been produced as a witness before the Tribunal. Therefore, the correct facts to prove the accident with a jeep as alleged in the claim petition could not be

¶58

(6 of 8)

¶59

[CMA-467/2001]

¶60

brought before the Tribunal. Non appearance of Smt. Durga before the Tribunal is also fatal to the claimants and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly analyzed the other material available on record for coming to the conclusion that the jeep of the respondent was not involved in the accident.

¶61

AW-1 Nandlal who is an injured claimant himself stated in his statement that after the accident, he became unconscious but before becoming unconscious, he had the driver of the jeep and the number of the jeep but the same were disclosed by him after 20 days to his son and then he filed a complaint which was sent to the police station on 14/09/1994. It has also come on record that Nandlal regained consciousness on 3^rd or 4^th day. I fail to understand that if a person has regained consciousness on 03^rd or 04^th day then why the disclosure of name and number of the jeep is made approximately after 02 months, and, therefore, it creates doubt in the mind of this Court that the name and number of the jeep have been concocted/established for the purpose of getting compensation.

¶62

It is also noted by the learned Tribunal that Smt. Durga in her statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that immediately after the accident, she disclosed the name of the driver and the number of the jeep to her husband. If Smt. Durga can disclose the name and number of the jeep driver to her husband then why the same was not disclosed to her son Arun, who lodged the complaint of the accident on the very same day. Conspicuously, in the complaint written by Arun, there is no name and number of the jeep involved in the accident. It is further noticed that Smt. Durga who did not receive any grievous injury could have disclosed the name of the driver and number of

¶63

(7 of 8)

¶64

[CMA-467/2001]

¶65

the jeep at both the places i.e. in the FIR as well as in her statement before the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C Tribunal but neither the name and number was disclosed by her own to her son Arun who lodged the FIR nor in her statement before police. Besides this, she has not been produced in the witness box. Not only this in the statement of Arun son of claimants (Nandlal and Smt. Durga) which was recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also the name and number of the jeep is not disclosed. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants could not prove that their moped met with an accident with jeep No. RJ06/C-1218 driven by respondent Gauttam.

¶66

Taking into consideration the sequence of events and the fact that the incident took place at 09:00 P.M. or sometime thereafter. In the State of Rajasthan, generally it is quite dark and to recognize the face of the driver and see the number after having a collision is highly improbable.

¶67

In these circumstances, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants are not tenable and this Court is of the opinion that the appellants could not prove that Jeep No.RJ-06/C1218 driven by Gauttam was not involved in the accident resulting into death of Anil and injuries sustained by Claimant Nandlal. Further, merely because a notice under Section 133 of the M.V. Act was given on which the reply was given by Tej Singh that the jeep driven by Gauttam met with an accident on 17/07/1994, I am of the view that the finding of the learned Tribunal is correct as Tej Singh (owner of the jeep) has stated that although he has made the signatures on the documents from “A” to “B” but the inscription over that is not in his handwriting. I have also examined the document wherein the notice under Section 133 of

¶68

(8 of 8)

¶69

[CMA-467/2001]

¶70

the M.V. Act was given and on the same, it is written that Jeep No.RJ-06/C-1218 driven by Gauttam met with an accident on 17/07/1994 and signatures of Tej Singh have been made. The same does not inspire confidence leading to the fact that the said vehicle was involved in the accident. Besides this, it is noted that the Criminal Case filed against Gauttam has also resulted into the acquittal and charges having been not found proved against him.

¶71

In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds no infirmity in the judgments impugned passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara. Both the appeals, are bereft of merit and the same are hereby dismissed.

¶72

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶73

17-18 SanjayS/-

Nandlal v. Mahaveer Synthetics and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandlal v. Mahaveer Synthetics and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pappu Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhanna Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganpat Bano Vs State of Rajasthan

Nandlal and Anr. Vs Mahaveer Syanthtetics and Ors.

Nand Lal Meena Vs Rajeev S. Thakar and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Choudhary and Anr. Vs Rajeev S. Thakar and Ors.