Mahendra Pratap v. State Of Uttarakhand and Ors

The brief facts of the case are that on 19.05.2009 at about 4:45 p.m., the deceased- Neeraj Kumar, aged about 30 years, was travelling to Rudrapur on his motorcycle when an oncoming Bolero vehicle bearing registration no. UK 06 J 9998 collided head-on with his motorcycle. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. 1 The Tribunal decided the claim petition as mentioned hereinabove. 3) The claimants(cid:151)his widow Rita Sharma and two dependent children(cid:151)filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation from the owner, driver, and insurer of the offending vehicle. It was stated that the deceased was working as a Sales Executive with Maruti Udyog Ltd., earning around Rs. 8,000/- per month, and was the sole earning member of the family. 4) The claimant further alleged that after the death of her husband, her in-laws (respondents no. 6 and 7) subjected her to dowry-related harassment and physical assault, compelling her to file proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She also alleged that the appellant who is the owner of the offending vehicle and also the maternal nephew of respondent no. 6 & 7, colluded with them to deny the involvement of the said vehicle in the accident, in order to defeat her legitimate claim for compensation. 5) The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in its appreciation of evidence. It was claimed that at the time of the accident, the appellant was in jail, and the claimant(cid:146)s brother, impersonating him, had fraudulently obtained release of the vehicle. It was further alleged that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. were pending on that issue. 6) The appellant also argued that respondent no. 4, Mohd. Ahmad (driver of the offending vehicle), was not his employee and had no authority to drive the said vehicle. According to him, the claimant(cid:146)s brothers, taking advantage of his absence and family ties, removed the vehicle from his farmhouse and falsely implicated it in the accident. 2 7) Respondent no. 4 (driver of the vehicle) admitted, however, that he was indeed driving the said Bolero on the date of the incident, but contended that the accident occurred when a Neelgai suddenly appeared on the road, and in an attempt to avoid hitting it, he collided with the motorcycle. 8) The insurer (respondent no. 5) denied liability, contending that neither the owner nor the driver had reported the accident, and also disputed the validity of the driver(cid:146)s licence. He further pleaded that the accident was a case of contributory negligence. 9) The deceased(cid:146)s parents (respondents no. 6 & 7) denied the involvement of the Bolero, asserting that the claimant and her brothers had falsely implicated the vehicle to extract compensation. They further relied upon a purported technical inspection report dated 09.06.2009, which allegedly showed that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. They also pleaded that on hearing news about the accident of their son, they rushed to the spot being driven in the same vehicle, alleged to be involved in the accident. The same vehicle was driven by the elder brother of the appellant, therefore, the possibility of the bolero vehicle bearing registration no. UK 06 J 9998 being involved in the accident does not arise. 10) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed following issues for determination: (i) Whether the accident occurred on 19.05.2009 at around 4:45 pm by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bolero vehicle bearing registration no. UK 06 J 9998 in consequence of which the deceased (cid:150) Neeraj Kumar, sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to them; (ii) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle, bearing registration no. UK 06 J 9998 was carrying a valid and effective driver(cid:146)s licence on the date of the occurrence of the said incident or not?; 3 (iii) Whether on account of the aforesaid accident and death of Neeraj Kumar, the claimants are entitled to compensation or not? If yes, then to what amount and from which of the parties. 11) On Issue No. 1, relying on the FIR, eyewitness accounts, and the post-mortem report, the Tribunal held that the accident was indeed caused by rash and negligent driving of Bolero No. UK 06 J 9998. Significantly, the driver himself admitted the occurrence and involvement of the said vehicle. 12) On Issue No. 2, it was found that the driver possessed a valid and effective licence on the date of the accident. 13) On Issue No. 3, the Tribunal assessed notional income at Rs. 3,000/- per month, deducted one-third for personal expenses, applied a multiplier of 17, and determined that only the wife and children of the deceased were dependents, since the deceased(cid:146)s father was a practicing senior advocate. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,43,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of evidence till realization. 14) The Tribunal further noted that owner of the vehicle (the appellant) had initially admitted, through his attorney, while he was in jail, that the accident had been caused by his vehicle, and this admission was consistent with the driver(cid:146)s testimony. However, after being released, he retracted his earlier stand, aligning himself with his relatives (respondents no. 6 and 7) to deny the involvement of the vehicle. The Tribunal found such retraction to be motivated and collusive, intended to shield the family from liability and frustrate the widow(cid:146)s claim. 15) Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the record, this Court finds no merit in the 4 present appeal. The material on record, including the FIR, the driver(cid:146)s admission, and the post-mortem report, conclusively establishes that the accident occurred on

19.05.2009 due to the rash and negligent driving of Bolero No. UK 06 J 9998. The subsequent denial by the owner and the deceased(cid:146)s parents appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court and defeat the rightful claim of the widow and her children. The appellant(cid:146)s claim that he was in jail at the relevant time does not absolve him of liability, particularly when his power of attorney-holder had earlier admitted the involvement of the vehicle and the driver corroborated the same under oath. The later retraction, after release lacks credibility, especially as it coincides with the stage when the parents of the deceased began opposing the claimant due to strained family relations and pending domestic violence proceedings. The conduct of the appellant, in shifting his stand to support the deceased(cid:146)s parents, who were opposing the widow, demonstrates clear collusion aimed at denying her compensation. Such collusive conduct has been rightly noticed and disbelieved by the learned Tribunal. 16) This Court finds that the Tribunal(cid:146)s inference of collusion is well-founded and supported by following circumstantial evidence: The appellant and the deceased(cid:146)s parents are closely related (maternal nephew and uncle-aunt); The appellant(cid:146)s initial admission of the vehicle(cid:146)s involvement is consistent with the driver(cid:146)s testimony. The retraction came only after the appellant(cid:146)s release and after family disputes arose between the claimant and her in-laws; No independent or contemporaneous record supports the appellant(cid:146)s claim of vehicle misuse by the claimant(cid:146)s relatives. 5 17) There is yet another circumstance in this appeal. No liability was fastened upon the owner-appellant yet he filed this appeal. The liability was fastened upon the respondent-insurance company which readily satisfied the award by depositing entire decretal amount in the learned MACT/District Judge, U.S. Nagar immediately after impugned judgment and award. No appeal has been preferred by respondent no.1-Insurance Company. The respondent-claimant had received the compensation along with interest accrued thereon way back in 2014. 18) Therefore, the Tribunal rightly rejected the appellant(cid:146)s defence as afterthought and found the accident proved beyond reasonable doubt. The compensation awarded is fair, just, and based on well-settled principles as laid in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121. There is neither any misappreciation of evidence nor any infirmity warranting interference under appellate jurisdiction. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The findings of the learned Tribunal are based on sound reasoning, credible evidence, and proper appreciation of facts and law. The plea of false implication and vehicle misuse stands disproved. The appellant(cid:146)s later retraction, in collusion with the deceased(cid:146)s parents, has been rightly disregarded. 19) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 07.03.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in MACP No. 207 of 2009 is affirmed. Rdang (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.10.2025 6