Mostt. Tara Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
motor vehicles act, 1988—sections 166 and 140—indian penal code, 1860—sections 299 and 337—death in motor accident—dismissal of claim by tribunal—identity of deceased being disputed by respondent—insurer—overwhelming oral and documentary evidence specially certificates granted by doctors established beyond doubt that deceased died due to head injuries sustained by him in said accident—submission of charge-sheet under sections 279 and 337 against driver of offending vehicle cannot affect merit of case of claimant—however, in absence of proof of rash and negligent driving, compensation cannot be granted under section 166—rs. 50,000/- awarded towards compensation under no-fault liability under section 140. - - accident..... syed md. mahfooz alam, j.1. this miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by mostt. tara devi, wife of late ram charitar singh @ palara singh, claimant-appellant of m.v.a. claim case no. 19 of 1995 against the judgment dated 26th july, 1997 passed by sri ram bilash gupta, presiding officer, m.v. accident claims tribunal, begusarai whereby he has been pleased to dismiss the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant and held that the claimant-appellant is not entitled for any compensation.2. the brief fact of the case is that the claimant-appellant had filed accident claim case bearing m.v.a claim case no. 19 of 1995 against the respondent on account of the death of her husband, ram charitar singh alias palara singh, who died in a road accident. the allegation was that on 23.8.1994 at.....

Judgment:

Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.

1. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by Mostt. Tara Devi, wife of late Ram Charitar Singh @ Palara Singh, claimant-appellant of M.V.A. Claim Case No. 19 of 1995 against the judgment dated 26th July, 1997 passed by Sri Ram Bilash Gupta, Presiding Officer, M.V. Accident Claims Tribunal, Begusarai whereby he has been pleased to dismiss the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant and held that the claimant-appellant is not entitled for any compensation.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the claimant-appellant had filed accident claim case bearing M.V.A Claim Case No. 19 of 1995 against the respondent on account of the death of her husband, Ram Charitar Singh alias Palara Singh, who died in a road accident. The allegation was that on 23.8.1994 at 10.30 A.M. the said Ram Charitar Singh alias Palara Singh, was crossing the road keeping a bundle of grass on his head. In the meantime a Tata 407 bearing registration No. BR 33 / 1361 which was being driven negligently by its driver, came there speedily and dashed the husband of the claimant who received injuries on his head and being unconscious he fell down. As the bus was in high speed, as such it became out of control and fell down in a ditch. However, the driver managed to escape. After the accident the husband of the claimant was removed to Teghra Hospital for treatment. On getting information about the accident, the police reached Teghra Hospital but as the husband of the claimant was not in a position to give statement, as such the police recorded the statement of one Ram Bahadur Singh, son of Late Ladu Lal Singh of village Madhurapur Bichala Tola, District Begusarai and on that basis the police instituted Teghra P.S. Case No. 142/94 under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter the police submitted chargesheet (Ext.3) against the driver of the vehicle under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per Ext. 3, further case of the claimant is that during treatment, her deceased husband remained unconscious and as such, Dr. A.K. Gupta referred him to the clinic of Dr. Ramashray Singh of Begusarai where on 4.9.1994 he died. It is said that the accident in which the informant's husband died, took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata 407 bearing registration No. BR 33/1361. It is further said that at the time of death, the deceased was aged about 50 years and his monthly income was Rs. 5000/-, as such the appellant being the widow of the deceased claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of his death. On the basis of the claim application filed by the appellant; M.V.A. Claim Case No. 19 of 1995 was registered' before the court of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Begusarai and in the said case, respondent No. 1 National Insurance Company, Begusarai appeared before the Tribunal as the vehicle in question was insured with the said Company. The respondent No. 1 contested the claim by filing written statement. However, the owner of the vehicle, namely, Shobhit Sah did not contest the claim.

3. The case of respondent No. 1, National Insurance Company before the Claims Tribunal was that no such accident had ever taken place as alleged by the claimant Mostt Tara Devi in which her husband Ram Charitar Singh had sustained injuries and later on died. The respondent No. 1 also claimed that the Company is not liable to pay compensation in absence of any proof that the driver of the vehicle had valid licence and the vehicle in question was insured under the Company and that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle.

4. From perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the M.V. Accident Claims Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant has failed to prove that deceased Ram Charitar Singh had died in a road accident involving the vehicle in question. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 it does not stand proved that the accident in which the deceased Ram Charitar Singh had sustained injuries was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and so the Tribunal arrived at the finding that the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation and dismissed the claim.

5. It has been argued by the learned Advocate of the appellant that there was overwhelming and exparte evidence on record adduced on behalf of the claimant to establish that the deceased Ram Charitar Singh alias Palara Singh, the husband of the claimant, had died in a motor vehicle accident, besides that there were several documentary evidence on record to establish that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident. He further submitted that there is also sufficient materials on record to hold that the said vehicle was insured under respondent No. 1 and the driver had also valid driving licence. His argument is that the dismissal of the claim petition is not according to law.

6. It has been argued by the learned Advocate of the respondent that as per the fardbeyan of Ram Bahadur Singh (Ext.2) which is the basis of the claim case in the alleged accident one Palara Singh, son of Late Mahabir Singh of village Madhurapur had sustained injury, who was admitted to Teghra Primary Health Centre on 23.8.1994. He further submitted that the chargesheet submitted in the case also corroborates that on the alleged date of occurrence one Palara Singh had sustained injury due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata 407, namely, Sheojee Singh and accordingly, chargesheet was submitted under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the said driver for causing injury to Palara Singh. The learned Advocate submitted that nowhere either in the fardbeyan or in the chargesheet it has been stated that Ramcharitar Singh or Palara Singh is one and the same person and as such, unless it is established that Ram Charitar Singh or Palara Singh is one and the same person, the claim application cannot be allowed.

7. It is true that the first information report and fardbeyan as well as chargesheet of Teghra P.S. Case No. 142 of 1994 show that in the alleged accident one Palara Singh, son of Late Mahabir Singh of village Madhurapur, P.S. Teghra, District Begusarai had sustained injuries and the name of Ramcharitar Singh does not find mentioned in those documents but the claimant's application shows that the real name of Palara Singh was Ram Charitar Singh and his parentage was shown as Late Mahabir Singh of village Madhurapur. This statement made by the claimant in the claim application has not been controverted by respondent No. 1 in its written statement and nowhere it has been stated that Ram Charitar Singh and Palara Singh were different persons. P.W. 2, Bhaso Singh, has specifically stated in his evidence that the alias name of Ram Charitar Singh was Palara Singh. This statement of P.W. 2 was corroborated by P.W. 5, Krishnadeo Singh at para 1 of his deposition. No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to controvert the evidence of the claimant that Palara Singh or Ram Charitar Singh was not the same person. Thus, I find that there is reliable and uncontroverted evidence on record that Ram Charitar Singh or Palara Singh was one and the same person. Exts. 2 and 3 fully 'establish this fact that in a motor vehicle accident the said Ram Charitar Singh alias Palara Singh had sustained injuries for which Teghra P.S. Case. No. 142 of 1994 was instituted in which the police has submitted chargesheet against the driver of the vehicle, namely, Sheojee Singh under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. From perusal of the case diary of the said case which is Ext. 8 it appears that the Investigating Officer has incorporated the injury report issued by Dr. A.K. Gupta, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Teghra which shows that for the injuries sustained by Palara Singh or Ram Charitar Singh, he was admitted to P.H.C. Teghra and his injury was examined by Dr. A.K. Gupta. All these facts along with the evidence on record establish beyond doubt that on 23.8.1994 deceased Ram Charitar Singh alias Palara Singh was dashed by a Tata 407 Bus in which accident he had received injuries on his person. The evidence has been led on behalf of the claimant that since the date of accident, the said Ram Charitar Singh alias Palara Singh remained under the treatment of Dr. A.K. Gupta but when no improvement was made he was referred to the Clinic of Dr. Ramashray Singh of Begusarai where he died. The overwhelming oral and documentary evidence specially the certificates granted by Dr. A.K. Gupta (Ext. 1) and by Dr. Ramashray Singh (Ext.9) establish beyond doubt that Ram Charitar Singh alias Palara Singh died due to head injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

9. It is true that chargesheet has been submitted under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code only but that cannot affect the merit of the case of the claimant because chargesheet was submitted within 5 days of the said accident whereas according to the case of the claimant, the injured Ram Charitar alias Palara Singh died after 14 days of the alleged occurrence i.e. on 4.9.94. Under the circumstances, mentioned above. I find that there is sufficient material on record to hold that deceased Ram Charitar Singh alias Palara Singh had died due to the motor-vehicle accident which had occurred on 23.8.1994 in which he had sustained head injuries.

10. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate of the respondents that even if it is admitted that the claimant's husband died in a motor vehicle accident, the claimant is not entitled to receive compensation unless it is proved that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. His submission is that there is absolutely no evidence on record that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. I find substance in the argument of the learned Advocate of the respondents as not a single eye-witness has come forward to depose that the occurrence had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and I am of the view that in absence of the proof that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, the compensation as claimed by the claimant cannot be granted. However, the argument of the learned Advocate of the appellant is that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation under no fault liability and for that, the claimant is not required to prove the negligent act of the driver. I am of the view that the argument of the learned Advocate of the appellant has got some merit and, therefore. I hold that although for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the claimant has to prove the act of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle but for grant of compensation under no fault liability as provided under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is not at all necessary to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. I, therefore, hold that the claimant, is entitled for award of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) towards compensation under no fault liability as it has been established that her husband had died due to the accident caused by the use of motor vehicle.

11. In the result, this miscellaneous appeal is hereby allowed and a total compensation of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) is awarded to the claimant under no fault liability for the death of her husband caused in the motor vehicle accident. The amount shall be payable by the respondent No. 1, National Insurance Company as the vehicle in question was insured at the time of alleged occurrence under the respondent No. 1. It is further directed that the respondent must pay the compensation amount within a period of three months from the date of this order failing which the amount till be realised by the process of court with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order for cost.