Dismissed

Basanti and Ors. v. Bhabuta Ram and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Jan 2024CMA/1416/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimants appealed dismissal of their motor accident compensation claim for death of Mala Ram in a scooter accident. The High Court found the FIR showed self-fall of the scooter, not involvement of the insured truck; eyewitness evidence was unreliable and belatedly introduced. Appeal was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Basanti and Ors. Vs Bhabuta Ram and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:43869]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1416/2004

¶4

Basanti W/o Shri Mala Ram, aged 30 years,

¶5

Durga D/o Shri Mala Ram, Age 12 years,

¶6

Hitesh S/o Shri Mala Ram, aged 10 years,

¶7

Sanjy S/o Shri Mala Ram, age 8 years

¶8

Appellants No.2 to 4 are minor through their natural guardian mother Smt. Basanti, all by caste Kumhar, R/o Paldii-M, presently Sheoganj, Distt. Sirho.

¶9

----Appellant

¶10

Versus

¶11

Bhabuta Ram S/o Meghaji Rebari, R/o Sardarpura, Tgehsil Sheoganj, Distt. Sirohi (Name deleted in lower court order)

¶12

Bishan Singh S/o Johar Singh Rajpurt, R/o Ushapuri Gate, Sumerpur, Distt. Pali.

¶13

The Divisional Manager, United Insurance Company Ltd., Mandia Road, L.I.C. Building, Pali-Marwar.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.Rakesh Arora, Adv.
	Mr.Manish Rajpurohit,Adv.
For Respondent	: Mr.Mahesh Joshi, Adv.
No.3 Insurance Co.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

¶17

Judgment

¶18

Judgment Reserved on : 14/12//2023

¶19

Judgment Pronounced on : 05/01/2024

¶20

The present appeal assails the award dt. 06.06.2003 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi on the file of M.A.C. Original Case No.344/2001, wherein and whereby the claim filed by the appellants seeking compensation for death of Mala Ram in the motor accident was dismissed.

[2023:RJ-JD:43869]

[CMA-1416/2004]

(2 of 6)

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants/dependents of the deceased.

¶25

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants is that the Tribunal without assigning proper reasons has discarded the evidence of eyewitnesses particularly AW-2 & AW-3 and the police investigation done in the form of challan. According to him, the Court has given utmost importance to the First Information Report, which according to the informant who was examined as AW-3 that his signature was obtained by the constable on blank papers and he never give information that fall of the deceased was on account of skidding of his scooter. It is also contended that the eyewitness account and police investigation clearly show that accident was result of the truck hitting the scooter in the opposite direction near the cross of Khandara, which is on highway. According to him, the findings of the Tribunal that the accident had not occurred with the vehicle owned by the first-respondent and insured by the other respondent. Therefore, such a finding requires interference.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has repelled the contention of learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel contended that the First Information Report lodged by AW-3 clearly indicate that the accident was occurred on account of loss of control of scooter and self-fall of the deceased, who was driving the scooter with the plastic-can. According to the learned counsel, the evidence on record shows that the deceased was driving the scooter with a 15 ltrs. can as spoken by AW-2 and on account of imbalance due to carrying of the plastic-can, there was lack of self-control of the steering of the scooter resulting

[2023:RJ-JD:43869]

[CMA-1416/2004]

(3 of 6)

skidding of the scooter and self-fallen. This has been the First Information Report. The First Informant was resident of the deceased village and there was no motive attributed to the police for preparing a false report by taking the signature of the informant on blank papers.

¶31

It is also contended that if AW-2 has really seen the accident involving the truck, his conduct shows that he has not informed the police about the incident or atleast he made attempt to shift the deceased to the hospital immediately after the accident or atleast he had informed anyone in the village so that the deceased could have been shifted to the hospital immediately if he had really seen the accident. The conduct of AW-2 goes to show that it is unnatural conduct and he had not seen the accident. He was a planted witness and the investigation was tainted for ulterior motive.

¶32

It is also contended that the First Informant retracted the statement contained in the First Information Report first time in the court and prior to that there is no retraction of such a statement at any point of time. The subsequent change of version of the First Informant was on account of his closeness with the family of the deceased as he belonged to the same village. According to him, the Tribunal has rightly discarded the evidence of eyewitnesses and rightly dismissed the claim of the appellants, which requires no interference.

¶33

Heard both the parties and perused the material on record.

¶34

The following points fall for consideration:

¶35

“Whether the accident was on account of involvement of truck owned and insured by the respondents and

[2023:RJ-JD:43869]

[CMA-1416/2004]

(4 of 6)

such an accident was result of rash and negligence and if so whether the claimants are entitled for fixation of compensation as prayed for”.

¶40

The First Information Report Exhibit-1 shows that the accident was occurred on 30.11.1999 at about 8 a.m. The accident was near Khandara cross road and the complaint was lodged by AW-3 on the same date at about 10 a.m. The version contained in the complaint shows that AW-3 who lodged the complaint, was running a jeep stage carriage in the same route, and while carrying the passenger, he had seen the deceased was being fell down on the scooter due to loss of control, and on account of such self fall, he received injury and he immediately shifted the deceased to hospital and while undergoing treatment, he died. Thereafter, an information regarding the incident was lodged promptly with the police concerned. Subsequently, the investigation was commenced and during the course of the inquest, panchnama and postmortem, there is no reflection about involvement of the truck owned and insured by the respondents. For the first time, the involvement of the truck was made by examination of witness on 24^th December. According to the witness statement, the information regarding involvement of the truck was known to the father-in-law of the deceased from AW-2, the eyewitness. Infact, both are not belonging to the same village and the evidence of AW-2 shows that he has not informed any such incident to the relatives of the deceased. His statements shows that he never contacted the deceased family and informed about the involvement of the truck. AW-2 claimed to be nearby villager and according to him, he had seen the accident while proceeding from Khadara to Posaliya village and his conduct shows that

[2023:RJ-JD:43869]

[CMA-1416/2004]

(5 of 6)

he claimed to have seen the accident and noted the truck number and went from the scene without making any effort either to shift the deceased or to inform the police or any of the nearby people. His evidence also shows that he had seen the accident at the distance of 30 to 40 meters nearly and the accident was near to one of the Rajput hotel. The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in the month of January, 2000. It is not known how the Investigating Officer knows the involvement of the truck and the same was witnesses by AW2. Such a link is missing.

¶45

The evidence of AW-3, the First Informant shows that he had shifted the deceased to the hospital, which is not in dispute. He changed the version that he only saw the deceased fall on the road with injuries, and initially in the First Information Report, he had stated that he had seen the deceased falling from the scooter losing the control. This First Information Report appears to be getting corroboration from AW-2 also to some extent. The evidence of AW-2 shows that the deceased was carrying a 15 ltrs plastic-can and the said witness was unable to say whether 15 ltrs. can on the scooter would probabilise loss of control on account of such a can, which corroborates the First Information Report lodged by AW-3. There is no reason or any motive attributed to the police constable so as to incorporate a wrong theory by taking signature of AW-3 on the blank-papers. The First Information Report clearly demonstrates that the accident was not on account of involvement of any third party vehicle and it was due to self-fall of the deceased. This self-fall was tried to converted as accident with the involvement of third party vehicle, which is not at all proved for various reasons at a belated stage.

(6 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JD:43869]

[CMA-1416/2004]

The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence of claimants and the document relied upon by them particularly the First Information Report and the other statements of the so-called witnesses cited by the police and has rightly discarded the evidence of AW-2 and changed version of AW-3. The Tribunal was right in dismissing the claim petition, which requires no interference. In view of the findings on the involvement of the truck, there is no need to go into the aspect of the determination of any compensation.

¶50

In the result, the present appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

¶51

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶52

NK/-

Basanti and Ors. v. Bhabuta Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Basanti and Ors. v. Bhabuta Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mirki and Ors. Vs Dasrath Singh and Ors.

Smt. Thawra Vs Dasrath and Ors.

Kamji and Anr. Vs Dasrath Singh and Ors.

Pawan Kumar Vs Chhaganlal and Ors.

Smt. Kanya Kanwar and Ors. Vs Babu Giri and Ors.

Smt. Shanta Kanwar and Ors. Vs Babu Giri and Ors.