Jeewan Lal vs Naresh Patel

Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of same accident, they are being disposed of by this common order.

Both the aforesaid appeals have been filed by the respective appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 30.01.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham (C.G.) (for short, 'the Tribunal) in Claim Case Nos.40/2016 (MAC No.716/2018) and 41/2016 (MAC No.715/2018) whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petitions. Parties to these appeals are herein after referred as per their description before the Claims Tribunal.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 04.02.2016 at 09:00 pm, the deceased persons Mannu Hathile along with his companion Rakesh Hathile, sitting as pillion rider, were coming on motorcycle towards village Sodha, at village Manikpur near Joggery Factory, they dashed the Tractor bearing registration No.C.G-05/ZG/0129 and trolley bearing registration No.C.G-05/ZG/0130 parked by Non-applicant No.1 – Naresh Patel without lighting the indicator (parking light) in the middle of the road and without laying any siege, after driving the same rashly and negligently and on account of such negligence of Non-applicant No.1, the deceased persons had lost their lives. Matter was reported to the Police Station Bodla where Crime No.18/2016 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC has been registered. On account of sudden demise of Mannu Hathile, claim application has been filed stating, inter alia, that Mannu Hathile used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month by running Mobile Shop at Bazar Chowk, village Rabeli and the applicants being parents of Mannu Hathile are fully dependents upon him, therefore, they have sought a sum of Rs.61,30,000/- as compensation under various heads. Similarly, seeking compensation of Rs.37,78,000/- under various heads, another claim application has been filed by the parents of Rakesh Hathile, by pleading that the deceased – Rakesh Hathile used to earn 8,000/- per month by working as Accountant (Clerk) under Vinit Agrawal, Chartered Accountant. It is not disputed that Non-applicant No.1 Naresh Patel was the driver whereas Non-applicant No.2 Ramprasad was the owner of the offending vehicle.

The Non-applicants, driver and owner, have contested the claim jointly by pleading, inter alia, that the offending vehicle was loaded with sugarcane and brought to the joggery factory for selling the sugarcane and in that event, the offending vehicle was cautiously parked on the extreme side of footpath after lighting the indicators and after talking with the Supervisor for 10 – 15 minutes the driver brought the tractor-trolley loaded with sugarcane inside the factor and no accident had taken place with the offending vehicle. On these premises, it was prayed that the claim applications deserve to be dismissed.

The Tribunal, vide impugned award dated 30.01.2018, after considering the evidence led by the parties, has held that the appellants/claimants have not been able to prove the accident that had taken place on 04.02.2016 claiming the lives of Mannu and Rakesh Hathile and dismissed the claim petitions.

Being aggrieved by the said impugned order/award, appellants of respective deceased persons are before this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals submits that the Tribunal has fallen in error in dismissing the claim petitions on finding that the appellants/claimants have not been able to prove the accident by leading cogent and clinching evidence. The approach of the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petitions is not sustainable in law.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents in both the appeals oppose the submissions, while submitting that the Tribunal, upon due and proper appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, has rightly dismissed the claim applications, which do not warrant any interference.

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including the evidence adduced by the claimants minutely.

Before the learned Claims Tribunal, the appellants/claimants filed documents, such as Final Report, F.I.R., Merg Intimation, Notice of inquest, Panchnama notice, Naksha Panchayatnama, application for post-mortem, post-mortem report, Crime details form, seizure memo of property, vehicle damage report and arrest memo, which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. It appears from perusal of the documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 that after registration of Crime No.18/16, Police Station Bodla started investigation and after conclusion of investigation, offence punishable under Section 304-A, 283 of IPC and 146/196 and 122/177 of the M.V.Act has been registered against Non-applicant No.1.

Now, I shall deal with the evidence adduced by the claimants before the Claims Tribunal. As per the evidence of Lalaram, the offending vehicle (Tractor-Trolley) was loaded with sugarcane and if the motorcycle collides with the trolley from back side, then the motorcycle would fall there and the person riding the motorcycle would also fall there. Admittedly, this witness was not the eye-witness and had he been eye-witness, he would certainly have told as to who is responsible for the cause of accident. Naresh Patel (N.A.W.1) in his testimony, has testified that he had brought the offending vehicle loaded with sugarcane, to the joggery factory and when the trolley loaded with sugarcane was emptied, it was 9:00 pm and at that time police personnel came and informed them that accident had taken place. Thereafter, the police personnel brought the workers to the accident spot and started searching and upon search, it was found that two persons were lying on the road, which is about 50 meters away from the joggery factory and a motorcycle was also found fell nearby the alleged two persons. Blood was oozing and there are number of injuries over the bodies of alleged persons and after checking, police declared them to be dead. This witness has further stated that police alleged that accident was caused by your tractor trolley and took him to police station and seized the tractor trolley, When it was suggested by the counsel for the claimants, he has further deposed in his cross-examination that there was no tractor trolley parked on the spot where both the dead bodies and motorcycle were lying there. Evidence of this witness was not rebutted.

Indisputably, there is no eye-witness to the incident. Had there been any eye witness to the incident, then the case would have been different. In absence of any eye-witness to the incident, this Court is left with no other option but to rely upon Ex.P.8, which is a spot map explaining in detail the description of the crime. As per the spot map (Ex.P.8), incident spot was marked as 'A' where the offending vehicle was parked and points 'B' and 'C', which are close to the said 'A' spot where both Mannu Hathile and Rakesh Hathile fell, but surprising to note here that motorcycle was lying on the spot marked as point 'D',, which is a place 40 meters away from the point 'A', the place where tractor trolley was parked. The spot where motorcycle lying is located in front of the tractor in the forward direction whereas the applicant Lalaram has alleged that the motorcycle was hit from behind the tractor trolley. In the F.I.R. (Ex.P.2), the applicant Lalaram alleged that after hitting the stationed tractor trolley, the persons riding the same fell down along with motorcycle. I failed to understand that how the motorcycle was found lying 40 meters away from the spot 'A' where tractor trolley was parked, had the motorcycle actually collided behind the standing tractor trolley. It is also noteworthy to mention here that the applicant Lalaram in his cross-examination stated that Rakesh and Mannu have died on the spot and further stated that both the dead bodies were lying near motorcycle. Applicants' witnesses Lalaram and Jeevanlal are not eye witness to the incident, thus, their verbatim statements contradict the material fact mentioned in the document Ex.P.8, which is also description of the crime.

Thus, from the evidence adduced on behalf of applicants, it is not established that both the deceased persons, i.e., Mannu Hathile and Rakesh Hathile sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same on account of tractor trolley being stationed without giving any indication by its driver/Non-applicant No.1 negligently. The learned Claims Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence led before it and the documents placed on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the applicants/appellants have not been able to prove the accident caused by Non-applicant No.1, resulting into, Mannu Hathile and Rakesh Hathile have died on the spot. I am of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are the fact findings based on evidence, oral as well as documentary, which do not call for any interference.

In the result, the appeals being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.