High Court
Legal Reasoning
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 504 of 2016 Appellant :- Radha Kumari And 2 Others Respondent :- Chandra Mohan And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Dileep Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Pawan Kumar Singh
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent. The appellant is the claimant and has filed the claim petition challenging the judgement and order dated 17.10.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Areas, Agra whereby the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition of the claimant appellant on the ground that the claimant appellant has failed to prove that Anil Singh @ Deepu died in an accident with Tractor bearing registration no. U.P. 80 CN-6908. The case of the claimant appellant was that one Anil Singh @ Deepu was going to his agricultural field on 21.04.2014 on the left side of road, when he was hit by Tractor bearing registration no. U.P. 80 CN-6908 coming from behind. In the said accident Anil Singh suffered injuries and he was admitted to Pushpanjali Hospital where he died during treatment. In the instant case the claimant appellant claimed a compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- alongwith the interest. The Tribunal framed issue no. 1 in respect of the occurrence of the alleged accident by a Tractor bearing registration no. U.P. 80 CN-6908. The Tribunal held that testimony of P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 who are said to be eye witnesses of the alleged accident was not worth believing. The Tribunal found that the F.I.R.was lodged in respect to the alleged accident after two months and no plausible explanation has been rendered for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. The Tribunal further held that in the F.I.R, it was stated that the Tractor after hitting the deceased had dashed with an electric pole where as no such case has been set up by the claimant appellant in the claim petition. By recording the finding, the Tribunal found that the claimant appellant has failed to prove the involvement of the Tractor bearing registration no. U.P. 80 CN-6908 in the accident and accordingly dismissed the claim petition. Challenging the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has erred in not believing the testimony of the eye witnesses P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 who have categorically stated that they had seen the accident and the accident had occurred by the Tractor bearing registration no. U.P. 80 CN-6908. He further contended that the police did not register the F.I.R with respect to such occurrence and only after the intervention of the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district the police had registered the F.I.R and as such the delay in filing the F.I.R was properly explained and thus the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the vehicle was not involved in the accident on the ground of delay in filing the F.I.R. It is further contended that the reasons given by the Tribunal that since the claimant appellant has not stated in the claim petition that the Tractor after hitting the deceased had dashed with an electric pole whereas in the F.I.R, it is stated that the Tractor after hitting the deceased had dashed with an electric pole and as there has been contradiction between the claim petition and the F.I.R, therefore, the occurrence of alleged incident is doubtful. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that as per the report of surveyor the driver of the Tractor had died and not the deceased Anil Singh @ Deepu. He submitted that no accident had taken place by the Tractor bearing registration no. U.P. 80 CN-6908 and the Tribunal after considering in detail testimony of P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 had given detailed reasons for not finding testimony of P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 worth believing. He further submits that the delay in filing the F.I.R is one of the crucial factor which clearly creates the doubt about the occurrence of the alleged accident. He further submits that even the postmortem report of the deceased does not corroborates the case of the claimant appellant that the deceased had died in the accident. I have heard the submissions of the both the parties. The record reveals that P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 who were the eye witnesses of the alleged accident had specifically stated that the accident had taken place by Tractor bearing registration no. U.P. 80 CN-6908. P.W.-2, besides making the specific statement that he is an eye witness of the accident has further stated that when he reached the spot of the accident the driver of the Tractor had threatened him not to tell anybody about the accident. The tribunal placing reliance upon part of the statement of the P.W.- 2 that when he reached on the spot of the accident, driver of the Tractor had threatened him not to disclose anybody about the accident to recorded the finding that the statement of P.W.-2 that he arrived at the place of accident after the occurrence of the accident. This Court finds that the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal in disbelieving the statement of P.W.-2 is absurd and perverse in as much as the testimony of witnesses is to be read as a whole and if that be so then the testimony of P.W.-2, clearly reveals that he was the eye witness of the accident. Similarly the court below had wrongly disbelieved the testimony of P.W.- 4. Now coming to the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in respect to delay in lodging the F.I.R, the record reveals that sufficient material had been placed before the Tribunal by the claimant/appellant justifying the delay in lodging the F.I.R inasmuch as despite their best effort, the F.I.R. could not be registered by the police and only after intervention of the S.P. of the concerned district the F.I.R was registered. The Court find that the Tribunal has also acted illegally in recording the finding on Issue no. 1 that there was contradiction in the claim petition and F.I.R in as much in the claim petition, the claimant has not averred the fact that after hitting the deceased the Tractor had dashed with an electric pole whereas in the F.I.R, it has been stated that after hitting the deceased the Tractor dashed with the electric pole. In opinion of the Court the fact the accident had taken place is proved by the claimant appellant, and therefore it is not material whether after hitting the deceased, the Tractor had dashed with an electric pole or not. The claimant appellant is entitled to compensation, once it is proved that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle and the claimant appellant have succeeded in establishing that the accident has occurred by the Tractor bearing registration no. U.P. 80 CN-6908. In view of the reasons above, this Court held that finding of the Tribunal and Issue no. 1 is perverse and is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, order of the Tribunal is also set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh on all other issues except issue no. 1. The Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petition expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 30.8.2022 PS Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2022.09.28 10:03:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad