Judgment:
ORDER
1. This appeal by the appellant-owner of the vehicle is directed against the judgment and award dated 27.8.2005 passed by Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Pakur in Claim Case No. 30/2003 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,42,000/- and held that the appellant-owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the said compensation amount.
2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:
The claimants-respondents, who are the widow, sons and daughters of the deceased, Pradhan Marandi, filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation on account of death of Pradhan Marandi while he was travelling in a bus which met with an accident. Claimants case was that on the relevant date the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle bearing registration No. BR-12-9985. The driver of the bus was driving the vehicle so rashly and negligently that the deceased fell down from the bus near Amrapara police station and died.
3. The respondent-Insurance Company, after taking permission of the Tribunal, contested the case on all the grounds by filing written statement stating, inter alia, that the claim case was a collusive one. As a matter of fact, the claimant was set up by the driver, conductor and khalasi of the offending vehicle and claim case was filed in order to save their own skin. Respondents' further case is that neither in the FIR nor in the charge-sheet it was disclosed that the death of the deceased resulted from an accident arising out of rash and negligence driving of a motor vehicle, rather, it was disclosed that the khalasi of the vehicle pushed down the deceased, Pradhan Marandi from the running vehicle due to which he died.
4. The Tribunal framed various issues including issue No. 4 as to whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle or due to willful conduct and deliberate act of the khalasi of the offending vehicle. While deciding this issue the Tribunal relied upon the FIR in which it is mentioned that the khalasi pushed down the deceased from the running bus. The Tribunal, therefore, on the basis of the FIR held that the deceased died due to his pushing down by the khalasi from the running bus and not due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. On the basis of this finding the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company has no liability. Consequently award against the appellant-owner of the vehicle was passed.
5. We have heard Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants-respondents.
6. The only question that falls for consideration is as to whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the basis of the statement recorded in the FIR and not on the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimants in the claim case, can be sustained in law?
7. It is well settled that the judgment in the criminal case is not conclusive and binding of the Tribunal while deciding a claim case arising out of motor vehicle accident. It is open to the claimants to adduce evidence aliunde de hors the finding that the accident had occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Normally the evidence recorded in criminal case may not be used for appreciating the proceeding in the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal. It is not necessary on the part of the Claims Tribunal to take into consideration the police report and the deposition recorded by the police. The accused may be discharged or acquitted in a criminal case but that does not mean that the accident did not take place or that cannot have any repercussion on the finding of the Claims Tribunal arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record.
7-A. In the instant case, as noticed above, the claimants examined witnesses in support of their case that the deceased fell down from the bus and died. AW 1, Manjhi Murmu stated in his evidence that the deceased, Pradhan Marandi, fell down from the bus due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. In cross-examination this witness has admitted that he along with the widow ran to the police station for lodging the FIR and the same was prepared by the police in which the widow of the deceased put her L.T.I. However, he categorically denied in cross-examination that the deceased was pushed down by the khalasi from the running bus. AW 2 is the widow of the deceased who said that her husband died in motor vehicle accident because of rash and negligent driving of the bus. In cross-examination she has categorically stated that she never said before the police that the khalasi of the vehicle pushed her deceased husband down from the running bus. AW 3, Stephen Murmu also stated that the deceased died due to fall from the running bus which was being driven rashly and negligently. This witness, in his cross-examination, has said that he has not made any statement before the police that the khalasi of the bus pushed the deceased down from the bus. Curiously enough although the Insurance Company has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in the claim case but the Tribunal, on the basis of the statement recorded in the FIR, decided issue No. 4 in favour of the Insurance Company.
8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid evidence we have no doubt in our mind in holding that the Tribunal has totally failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective and thereby has committed serious illegality in recording its finding on the basis of the statements recorded in the FIR. The Tribunal has further failed to consider that claim case for grant of compensation cannot be defeated and the victims cannot be deprived of their claim merely on the basis of some statement recorded by the police in form of FIR particularly when the L.T.I. of the widow appearing on the FIR was not even duly proved.
9. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. It can safely be concluded that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus for which the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount having regard to the fact that the vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company.
10. In the result this appeal is allowed and the respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.
D.K. Sinha, J.
11. I agree.